we have no proofs about the existence of god

Simon_Templar

Not all who wander are lost
Jun 29, 2004
7,692
1,040
49
Visit site
✟32,462.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Can you define free will?

Will is a power of the soul (in humans). There are different kinds of souls and those different kinds of souls have different powers. In this context I mean by "soul" the non-material component that makes living things alive.

Another way of saying this, again relating back to classical philosophy, is that material does not move itself. It must be acted upon by something in order for it to be moved. Matter can be acted upon by other matter to cause movement in a kind of chain reaction, like one billiard ball hitting another billiard ball. However, this chain reaction leads immediately back to the same chain of causality we have discussed before. Motion cannot come from nothing and no where. Matter cannot impart motion to other matter if it itself does not have motion. So where does the motion come from? It ultimately has to come from something non-material. Something outside of the material world. This is Aristotle's "unmoved mover" argument.

Life is a kind of motion. The motion of life is imparted to living matter by the non-material form that we call the soul.

Some of the powers of the human soul include

Intellect
This is the ability to know things. This includes both abstract and concrete knowledge. So ideas and concepts, but also the ability to know the physical world around you. For example, to not only sense that there is a tree, but to know what the tree is.

Appetite
This is the ability to desire things. This includes two types of desires, natural and elicitive. Natural desires are things that the soul desires by it's very nature, for example by nature the human soul desires to live, it desires to know, it desires to love and to be loved. Elicitive desires are those things that we don't desire by the nature of our own soul, but we may come to desire them because we are capable of knowing them in our intellect. For example, the human soul does not desire to bird watch by it's very nature but a person may come to desire to bird watch because our intellect is capable of knowing birds.

Will
This is the power of choice. This generally means choosing between desires, but it also includes choosing based upon prudential judgement. So for example, I might desire to get up early and go to the gym because I want to get fit. I might also desire to sleep in because it feels good. Will is what ultimately makes the choice between and determines which I actually do.

Will is guided and shaped by the intellect and reason. If I believe an action to be bad, for example, then my reason may inform my will that even if I desire to do it, I shouldn't because it is morally wrong. Likewise, when I want to get fit, my intellect will inform my will which course of action is most likely to result in actually obtaining the result I desire.
However, will also moves and guides the intellect. For example, my intellect will usually not gain knowledge unless I decide by act of will that I am going to pursue gaining a specific kind of knowledge. Will directs what I think about etc.

So Will and Intellect work together. It isn't simply one over the other.

Now, Free Will is when the ability to choose between desires is not constrained or compelled by a power outside of your own soul. In simple terms, you have the real ability to choose A or B.

In a certain sense the complete denial of free-will is simply a denial of will itself. If it is impossible to actually have real choice, then you don't just not have free will, will itself just doesn't exist.

However, it is possible for the will to be impaired or constrained by given circumstances. In such cases we could say that the will should be free, but something is impairing it's normal free function. One example of this is when a person becomes addicted.

If a person is addicted, the normal strength of desires is so out of whack and one desire has become so powerful that they are no longer capable of not choosing that desire. Perhaps a better way of saying this would be, they are no longer capable of not choosing that desire, without a great degree of outside help. In most cases, the ability to choose that desire simply has to be taken away by removing opportunity.

This reflects the importance of habits as well. The human soul and the human will are built such that when a given choice is made repeatedly, that choice becomes easier and easier to make. Conversely the opposing choice becomes harder and harder to make. However, a choice being difficult does not mean that you aren't free to make that choice. Anymore than any task being difficult doesn't mean you aren't free to do that task. It might mean you need to practice doing it for a while first though.

Aristotle deal with that idea in his section of virtue in the Nichomachean Ethics.
 
Upvote 0

looking_for_answers_

Active Member
Dec 14, 2017
154
63
32
Boston
✟13,858.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In a certain sense the complete denial of free-will is simply a denial of will itself. If it is impossible to actually have real choice, then you don't just not have free will, will itself just doesn't exist.

Disagree. Will is my experience of choosing. Will is desire. This is not incompatible with determinism.

Now, Free Will is when the ability to choose between desires is not constrained or compelled by a power outside of your own soul. In simple terms, you have the real ability to choose A or B.

This is all I was asking about. However, by this definition, determinism can still be true.

I can choose between A and B. But my choice is not random, it is ultimately based on something. It is not free.

So in the example I gave before, which is trying to suss out how free will is different from determinism and randomness, what would the test results of a "free" agent look like, as compared to one who's will is determined? If you truly believe that free will exists, you should be able to define it through your answer to this question. Sure a will that is free would be distinguishable from one that is not?
 
Upvote 0

Simon_Templar

Not all who wander are lost
Jun 29, 2004
7,692
1,040
49
Visit site
✟32,462.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
You talk about "purpose". Can a purposeful agent do something against it's own purpose? If so, how was it caused to do so? Even the immaterial, if it has rules, has to obey those rules. You can't just say "no, that's wrong, we just can't comprehend it with our material minds" if you can't even come up with a logically coherent definition of what it is. This has nothing to do with causal chains or time. I have yet to hear a third alternative to determinism or randomness that made any sense.

This question is simply illogical to begin with. It's like asking 'can there be a square circle?' a square circle is not a thing. It is by definition a logical contradiction.

Likewise asking "can you act against your own purpose?" is a logical contradiction. If I act against my own purpose, then I am deliberately purposing that my purpose fail. All this amounts to is that I changed my mind and decided on a new purpose. Or I made a mistake and took an action that I thought would accomplish my purpose but it didn't.

what you are asking here is "can you intend something you don't intend?" it's a nonsense question.

I'm not saying there aren't rules. I'm saying that the rules as you know them don't apply and if you can't stop thinking according to those specific rules, you can't understand this concept. It's like saying that if I can't understand poetry by using the laws of physics, then poetry is false. No, your just using the wrong types of rules and the wrong way of thinking about it.

Unfortunately the truth doesn't give a crap about my reaction to it. The universe could be something horrific and we could all be blithely unaware. So it would be more accurate to say that I should not allow the idea to change how I act, not that I should reject it just because it makes me uncomfortable.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that if such a thing as rationality exists, then it demands consistency between belief and reality. The life you live every day is reality regardless of whether you actually understand it correctly or not. The fact that you think thoughts is reality. The fact that you make choices is reality. The fact that you act every day as if you exist as a person and have a mind is reality. If you believe something about the world that absolutely contradicts the reality that you live, that is by definition irrational.

If you wish to be rational then you must bring your lived reality into line with what you believe to be true. If it is impossible to do that, then you must either admit that your belief is wrong, or you are irrational. If you are irrational, why are we having this conversation? (I admit, that one is more on me than on you.)

Not quite. I can believe in determinism and not really give a crap. It doesn't change anything about my life. I can still enjoy pizza, get chills when listening to the skyrim soundtrack, enjoy the thrill of skiing down the mountainside. I realized determinism a long time ago, have not gone crazy or had my life ruined - in fact not much has changed.

This just means you don't understand what belief is and you don't have much intellectual integrity. If you don't strive to live according to what you believe to be true about the world, then your belief and frankly your thoughts are largely worthless.

I realize that this comment is harsh, but I am not speaking out of anger at you here and I don't mean anything personal by it. However, this is one of the great diseases of our world today. People wander through life like zombies, half human, thinking that the stuff in their head is irrelevant, impractical, and unimportant. What really matters is making money and entertaining yourself as much as possible before you die. This is a pathetic existence, not worthy of human beings.

What you believe and how you act based on your beliefs are the most important things in life. It is the combination of those things that makes you who you are. It is what you do with those things that determines who and what you become.

Intellectual integrity means that you actually assign importance to what you believe. It means that you try to live up to what you believe. The truths that you know order your life, and if they don't then they are worthless.

When you say that what you believe doesn't reflect in how you live, you are simply saying that you are lying to yourself either about what you believe, or about who you are, or both.

It is self-evident that nothing outside of me forces my decisions. It is certainly not self-evidence to me that my decisions are free from internal determinism though.

Well, I am an example of someone who believes in determinism. I don't want to, but I have yet to hear an alternative that makes sense and is actually based in something we percieve in the universe. Determinism does not really say much about how I should live my life, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. The most it does is give me humility about my accomplishments, and makes me feel a lot more empathetic and forgiving of people who I would have previously seen as "bad" and been quick to judge.

What internally determines?

If the answer is material, ie things of the brain and the body, then you are simply lapsing back into materialism. The assertion you made was that Transcendence / Immaterialism does not allow for free -will. I have already agreed that materialism is completely deterministic. If you must resort to materialism to prove determinism, then this whole conversation is pointless and you are just talking in circles.

Remember that this conversation is the result of the fact that you made the assertion that transcendence / immaterialism does not allow for free will. You initially justified this assertion by using the idea that a previous state or underlying set of rules determine the event, thus it is still determined.

I responded to those justifications by saying that you are using materialistic ideas which do not apply to the immaterial world. For example, what does "state" mean when speaking of a spirit? or what rules govern spirits?

You responded to that by suggesting that I was just being evasive and there must be rules. First off, I think you read what I said more carefully, I believe I did say that there are probably rules but they are necessarily and fundamentally different than rules for matter and you can't simply talk about non-material things as though they were material because they aren't.

So, what rules do you think there are? and why do they require that determinism must be true?

2+2 is determined to be 4. Does this make 2+2=4 incorrect?

This again, tends to indicate to me that you aren't really following what I'm saying and you can't get your mind out of the material world.

Matter is quantitative. Math describes matter very well because it is quantitative. The non-material world is not necessarily quantitative. It is primarily qualitative. It is a totally different way of thinking. I can't say that there is nothing quantitative about it, but it is not like matter.

Mathematical reasoning is not the only kind of reasoning that exists. This is one of the reasons that scientists generally make terrible philosophers. They can't get their mind around the fact that there are other valid ways of thinking and reasoning than just quantitative mathematical reasoning.

Imagine I am reading the test results of three agents who are answering a questionairre about ethics. One agent gives determined answers. Another gives random answers. The third has been given the gift of free will, so he gives free answers. How on earth can I tell it apart from the other two? If the answer is "it's indistinguishable" then this just underlines how weak the construct is.

I think what you are trying to get at here is something like the scientific principle that hypotheses need to be falsifiable. In other words, if it is impossible to prove a hypothesis wrong, then it's an invalid hypothesis. It can't reliably be tested.

In your scenario for the person reading the tests, it would be impossible for them to be certain that one of them was filled out by a free-agent. That is true. However, the reverse is also true. If it is impossible to tell the difference then they can't differentiate one way or the other. That doesn't mean that either conclusion is true. It doesn't even mean that either conclusion is more likely. The weakness here is not in the conclusions, but in the method of testing.

However, there is also another problem. It has to do with burden of proof. In any given scenario it is the extraordinary claim that needs to be proven. Not the normal state of affairs.

So if I claim the earth is round, and someone else claims that the earth is flat... the burden of proof is really on them not on me. There are so many things in our world that suggest the earth is round that they need to prove why all those things are incorrect, not the other way around.

Likewise, if a teacher gave a test, it would be absurd of the teacher to have to prove that the results actually came from students. The burden of proof would be on the person claiming that the results did not come from students.

Likewise, every human being who has ever lived has had a mountain of evidence and experience demonstrating that they have the ability to make choices. The burden of proof is not on proving that the choices we make actually exist. The burden of proof is on the person who says they don't exist.

Going back to my previous post, this is exactly the same as something like Silopsism. I don't have to prove that things other than me exist, it's self-evident that they do. The Silopsist has to prove that they don't exist.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Simon_Templar

Not all who wander are lost
Jun 29, 2004
7,692
1,040
49
Visit site
✟32,462.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Disagree. Will is my experience of choosing. Will is desire. This is not incompatible with determinism.

This is the kind of thing that makes me think you don't really understand or haven't really fully thought out your own views.

You say you disagree that denying free will is fundamentally denying the existence of will...
Then you say that the Will is your "experience of choosing" and "Will is desire." and "this is not incompatible with determinism".

Lets look at "will is desire" first. Do you have more than one desire? yes, everyone does. Do your desires at times compete with each other? yes, I think it's pretty obvious we all experience that during our life. If this is the case then Will cannot be merely desire. Even if I allow that what you meant was Will is whatever desire is strongest there is a problem because this is confusing the motivation with the act. To say that desire and will are the same thing would be like saying that being hungry and eating are the same thing. This is obviously not true. The best you could say is that the strongest desire is irresistible and therefor compels the will to action. Even in this case, however, desire and will are not the same thing.

Now lets move on to "will is my experience of choosing"
Let's break this down will is your experience of choosing, even though the choice is compelled.
This is functionally the same as saying that will is an illusion. It exists in the sense that it is an experience you have, but it only exists as the illusion of you having a choice. It exists in the same way as a sound exists when you thought you heard something, but there was actually no sound.

Another way of saying it would be that "Will" is the illusion that your choice was not compelled. So in other words, will as a thing, does not exist. It is fundamentally a lie.

So yes, denial of free will is fundamentally the same as denying the existence of will as a real thing.

I grant you that what you said here is not incompatible with determinism, but it is either incorrect (in the case of will is desire) or fundamentally meaningless (in the case of will is my experience of choosing).

This is all I was asking about. However, by this definition, determinism can still be true.

I can choose between A and B. But my choice is not random, it is ultimately based on something. It is not free.

So in the example I gave before, which is trying to suss out how free will is different from determinism and randomness, what would the test results of a "free" agent look like, as compared to one who's will is determined? If you truly believe that free will exists, you should be able to define it through your answer to this question. Sure a will that is free would be distinguishable from one that is not?

This line is another telling statement to me...
"This is all I was asking about. However, by this definition, determinism can still be true."

The reason this is telling to me is because it seems very much like you were just skimming through what I said looking for what you wanted to find. It suggests that you've got a pre-scripted argument and all your doing is looking for a hook to hang it on.

That in turn suggests that you aren't actually bothering to try and understand what I say and see if my view or arguments have merit or if you even understand them. In other words, this is not a meaningful dialogue, and I'm basically talking to myself.

This is bolstered by the fact that you simply restated the exact same argument that you used a few posts ago.

Now, I will admit that I didn't fully address the argument last time, so it is worth revisiting. What I said last time is valid, but doesn't necessarily address all points thoroughly.

The argument as you have it stated here is not logically valid. It must involve unstated assumptions in order to be turned into a valid logical argument. Last time I assumed that you were supplying the necessary assumption by relying upon your conceptions about the way the material world works. Which is, I would say, still true, but incomplete.

The argument as stated is a non sequitur, meaning that the stated premises don't actually lead to the state conclusion.

Premise 1: I can choose A and B (this premise is true)
Premise 2: My choice is based on something (this premise is true, or probably true)
Conclusion: My choice is not free (the two ideas above do not lead to this conclusion)

The above version of the argument is both logically invalid and untrue.

The statement could be made logically valid by inserting another premise

Premise 1: I can choose A and B (this premise is true)
Premise 2: My choice is based on something (this premise is true, or probably true)
Premise 3: Choices must be free from influence in order to be free and/or have no prior basis (this premise is false)
Conclusion: My choice is not free (this conclusion does follow from the premises, but one of the premises is false)

The above version of the argument is logically valid, but untrue because a premise is false.

The reason that the premise is false is because influence is not the same thing as compulsion or constraint. To say that a choice is based on something, or even to say that a choice arises from something doesn't mean that the choice was determined.

Matter is deterministic because matter cannot resist influence. If force or influence is applied then matter will respond. For example, matter cannot decide to resist the influence of gravity. This can only happen if a stronger influence overrides the influence of gravity.

You are assuming that this is true of non-material beings as it is true of matter. There is no basis for this assumption. So once again, you would have to explain to me why a soul or a spirit cannot resist influences either internal or external.



Previously I tried to point out some of the differences between material and non-material and the way we think about it by making reference to the difference between quantity and quality, or the difference between poetry and physics. Let me try another example.

The material world has laws that we call physical laws. Physical laws describe how matter must react under given forces and situations. Matter is not active, it can only react. Matter cannot act, it can only be acted upon. Another way of saying this is that matter is purely objective. It can't be the subject. Physical laws describe what happens when matter is acted upon.

The non-material world also has laws. We refer to these laws as moral laws, or sometimes spiritual laws. However, there is a fundamental difference between matter and spirit (the non-material). Spirit can both act and be acted upon. Unlike matter, which is only ever object, spirit by it's fundamental nature is subject. A spirit can also be the object of an action by another spirit, but in being temporarily the object, it does not lose it's subjectness.
The laws that govern spirit do not describe what happens when a spirit is acted upon rather they describe how spirits should act. Another way of saying it is they describe what the consequence of an act is.

For example, we could say that the spiritual law says that spirits should love. Or would could say that the spiritual law says If spirits love they grow and become more full of being, but if a spirit does not love it shrinks and becomes less full of being.

Spiritual laws DO NOT describe what happens when spirit is acted upon. For example, if one spirit loves another spirit, there is no law which describes how loved spirit must react. Likewise if a spirit hates another spirit, there is no law which describes how the hated spirit must act, only a law that describes what will happen to the one who hates, or the one who loves.

This is because the "reaction" of the loved spirit is not a truly a reaction in the material sense but a new action.

Do you see the difference between these two types of being and the laws that govern them?
Matter is only acted upon and the laws that govern matter say "when you are acted upon you must do this"
Spirit acts and the laws that govern spirit say "if you act this way, you get this result."
 
Upvote 0

Simon_Templar

Not all who wander are lost
Jun 29, 2004
7,692
1,040
49
Visit site
✟32,462.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
For sure it is a complex problem, and hard definitions of what consciousness is after all the studies on it are also wickedly elusive, and yet totally necessary in order to define the noun "I" in the above definition of free will.

I just wanted to offer comment on this. The term "studies" implies scientific study, if I'm incorrect in taking that way then this may not be applicable.

However, science can only study the material world. It is fundamentally incapable of addressing whatever non-material reality might exist. As a result, scientific studies into a non-material thing such as consciousness are almost invariably highly biased. The most basic bias is that in order to even study it you have begin by assuming that it exists within the material world.

Let us assume for a moment that there are in fact two worlds. The material and the non-material.
Let us further assume that "consciousness" exists in the non-material world.
Finally lets assume that non-material consciousness interacts with material systems in the material world. For example, the brain, the nervous system, etc.

Now, the well meaning scientist comes to study consciousness. However, scientific inquiry by it's very nature can only address the material world. That means I cannot see or learn anything about consciousness itself, but only the material effects of consciousness.

Let's assume this scientist has an open mind. They don't know if consciousness if material or not but they want to find out. So they go looking for consciousness to see if they can prove that consciousness is a material phenomenon. What do they find?

They find the material effects of consciousness. What is the likely conclusion? It is highly likely that the scientist will conclude that the material effects of consciousness are consciousness itself. In essence they will reverse cause and effect. They will think that consciousness is the effect and the workings of the brain are the cause, rather than thinking that the workings of the brain are the effect and consciousness is the cause. They are unlikely to think that because science is literally incapable of suggesting it, even if it is true.

"science" is great, but it is ultimately just a tool. Like all tools, it is good for a specific job and useless at other jobs. One of the great problems of the modern era is/was the insistence that science is the only tool and it can do every job. This has crippled our whole culture's ability to think.
 
Upvote 0

looking_for_answers_

Active Member
Dec 14, 2017
154
63
32
Boston
✟13,858.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
"This question is simply illogical to begin with. It's like asking 'can there be a square circle?' a square circle is not a thing. It is by definition a logical contradiction.

Likewise asking "can you act against your own purpose?" is a logical contradiction. If I act against my own purpose, then I am deliberately purposing that my purpose fail. All this amounts to is that I changed my mind and decided on a new purpose. Or I made a mistake and took an action that I thought would accomplish my purpose but it didn't.

what you are asking here is "can you intend something you don't intend?" it's a nonsense question.

I'm not saying there aren't rules. I'm saying that the rules as you know them don't apply and if you can't stop thinking according to those specific rules, you can't understand this concept. It's like saying that if I can't understand poetry by using the laws of physics, then poetry is false. No, your just using the wrong types of rules and the wrong way of thinking about it."

This is exactly why libertarian free will seems so incoherent to me

"No, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that if such a thing as rationality exists, then it demands consistency between belief and reality. The life you live every day is reality regardless of whether you actually understand it correctly or not. The fact that you think thoughts is reality. The fact that you make choices is reality. The fact that you act every day as if you exist as a person and have a mind is reality. If you believe something about the world that absolutely contradicts the reality that you live, that is by definition irrational."

I believe that my choices and thoughts are determined. I don't see why I'm supposed to go crazy because of that belief. Honestly my life over the last year has gone pretty close to how I imagine it would have if I'd never learned about determinism. I'm just as happy as before, I still enjoy many of the same hobbies and have even more friends, and I don't see why any of that doesn't line up with being a determinist.

This is the kind of thing that makes me think you don't really understand or haven't really fully thought out your own views.

I can promise you I have spent the last year reading and thinking about this to the point of unhealthy obsession

You say you disagree that denying free will is fundamentally denying the existence of will...
Then you say that the Will is your "experience of choosing" and "Will is desire." and "this is not incompatible with determinism".

Lets look at "will is desire" first. Do you have more than one desire? yes, everyone does. Do your desires at times compete with each other? yes, I think it's pretty obvious we all experience that during our life. If this is the case then Will cannot be merely desire. Even if I allow that what you meant was Will is whatever desire is strongest there is a problem because this is confusing the motivation with the act. To say that desire and will are the same thing would be like saying that being hungry and eating are the same thing. This is obviously not true. The best you could say is that the strongest desire is irresistible and therefor compels the will to action. Even in this case, however, desire and will are not the same thing.

If the net sum of all my desires is to eat, then I am determined to go eat. If I do not go eat, then the net sum of all my desires was not to go eat.

Now lets move on to "will is my experience of choosing"
Let's break this down will is your experience of choosing, even though the choice is compelled.
This is functionally the same as saying that will is an illusion. It exists in the sense that it is an experience you have, but it only exists as the illusion of you having a choice. It exists in the same way as a sound exists when you thought you heard something, but there was actually no sound.

Another way of saying it would be that "Will" is the illusion that your choice was not compelled. So in other words, will as a thing, does not exist. It is fundamentally a lie.

Semantics. If you insist, sure. However, a more apt way of putting it is that I experience many things, such as sound or color, that are not "real". Yet I expereince them as if they are. So they're illusory, but real. I have a net sum of desires. It is real.

I grant you that what you said here is not incompatible with determinism, but it is either incorrect (in the case of will is desire) or fundamentally meaningless (in the case of will is my experience of choosing).



This line is another telling statement to me...
"This is all I was asking about. However, by this definition, determinism can still be true."

The reason this is telling to me is because it seems very much like you were just skimming through what I said looking for what you wanted to find.

I am going through in the hopes of getting out of determinism. I don't care as much as I used to, but I'm still open to it, if I can find another system that makes sense to my brain.

It suggests that you've got a pre-scripted argument and all your doing is looking for a hook to hang it on.

That in turn suggests that you aren't actually bothering to try and understand what I say and see if my view or arguments have merit or if you even understand them. In other words, this is not a meaningful dialogue, and I'm basically talking to myself.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I will be the first to admit that I am a slow-witted man. As people in real life have told, it can frequently take awhile for some things to truly set in my mind.

This is bolstered by the fact that you simply restated the exact same argument that you used a few posts ago.

Now, I will admit that I didn't fully address the argument last time, so it is worth revisiting. What I said last time is valid, but doesn't necessarily address all points thoroughly.

The argument as you have it stated here is not logically valid. It must involve unstated assumptions in order to be turned into a valid logical argument. Last time I assumed that you were supplying the necessary assumption by relying upon your conceptions about the way the material world works. Which is, I would say, still true, but incomplete.

The argument as stated is a non sequitur, meaning that the stated premises don't actually lead to the state conclusion.

Premise 1: I can choose A and B (this premise is true)
Premise 2: My choice is based on something (this premise is true, or probably true)
Conclusion: My choice is not free (the two ideas above do not lead to this conclusion)

The above version of the argument is both logically invalid and untrue.

The statement could be made logically valid by inserting another premise

Premise 1: I can choose A and B (this premise is true)
Premise 2: My choice is based on something (this premise is true, or probably true)
Premise 3: Choices must be free from influence in order to be free and/or have no prior basis (this premise is false)
Conclusion: My choice is not free (this conclusion does follow from the premises, but one of the premises is false)

The above version of the argument is logically valid, but untrue because a premise is false.

The reason that the premise is false is because influence is not the same thing as compulsion or constraint. To say that a choice is based on something, or even to say that a choice arises from something doesn't mean that the choice was determined.

So
determined part + undetermined part = choice

But the issue I have is that I can't see any coherent definition of "undetermined, but not random". "Undetermined" is synonymous with "random". I know people disagree with this but I can't seem to suss out the distinction that allows freedom. Surely we should be able to at least come up with some explanation.

Matter is deterministic because matter cannot resist influence. If force or influence is applied then matter will respond. For example, matter cannot decide to resist the influence of gravity. This can only happen if a stronger influence overrides the influence of gravity.

You are assuming that this is true of non-material beings as it is true of matter. There is no basis for this assumption. So once again, you would have to explain to me why a soul or a spirit cannot resist influences either internal or external.

I don't think it's helpful to include the material world at all in this discussion for this very reason; it doesn't get at the heart of the issue.

Zoom in close enough that there is no more combination of internal and external

Previously I tried to point out some of the differences between material and non-material and the way we think about it by making reference to the difference between quantity and quality, or the difference between poetry and physics. Let me try another example.

The material world has laws that we call physical laws. Physical laws describe how matter must react under given forces and situations. Matter is not active, it can only react. Matter cannot act, it can only be acted upon. Another way of saying this is that matter is purely objective. It can't be the subject. Physical laws describe what happens when matter is acted upon.

The non-material world also has laws. We refer to these laws as moral laws, or sometimes spiritual laws. However, there is a fundamental difference between matter and spirit (the non-material). Spirit can both act and be acted upon. Unlike matter, which is only ever object, spirit by it's fundamental nature is subject. A spirit can also be the object of an action by another spirit, but in being temporarily the object, it does not lose it's subjectness.
The laws that govern spirit do not describe what happens when a spirit is acted upon rather they describe how spirits should act. Another way of saying it is they describe what the consequence of an act is.

For example, we could say that the spiritual law says that spirits should love. Or would could say that the spiritual law says If spirits love they grow and become more full of being, but if a spirit does not love it shrinks and becomes less full of being.

Spiritual laws DO NOT describe what happens when spirit is acted upon. For example, if one spirit loves another spirit, there is no law which describes how loved spirit must react. Likewise if a spirit hates another spirit, there is no law which describes how the hated spirit must act, only a law that describes what will happen to the one who hates, or the one who loves.

This is because the "reaction" of the loved spirit is not a truly a reaction in the material sense but a new action.

Do you see the difference between these two types of being and the laws that govern them?
Matter is only acted upon and the laws that govern matter say "when you are acted upon you must do this"
Spirit acts and the laws that govern spirit say "if you act this way, you get this result."

If a spirit chooses to act in a certain way, under identical conditions, would it always act that way? If the answer is no even when the conditions internal and external were 100% the same, then why did it act differently some times? Would this not just be random?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Simon_Templar

Not all who wander are lost
Jun 29, 2004
7,692
1,040
49
Visit site
✟32,462.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
If a spirit chooses to act in a certain way, under identical conditions, would it always act that way? If the answer is no even when the conditions internal and external were 100% the same, then why did it act differently some times? Would this not just be random?


What does random mean to you? If something happens randomly, what caused it?
If we assume a choice was made randomly, then what caused the choice?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Simon_Templar

Not all who wander are lost
Jun 29, 2004
7,692
1,040
49
Visit site
✟32,462.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Another couple of questions that I'm curious about.

1. assuming that will is desire, or that will is simply your experience of the strongest desire proving itself.
How is it decided what the strongest desire is? For example, it is a common experience to feel a desire very strongly but still try to resist it because you think that it is not good. What determines which is the stronger desire?

2. Is it possible to be wrong about what you actually desire? Another common experience is to pursue a desire, only to find out once you attain it that you didn't really want it. Were you wrong about what you desired? if so what determines what desires are real and which aren't?

3. Is it possible for you to voluntarily change your desires? If so, how does this occur? What determines which desires you change, which you change to, etc?
 
Upvote 0

looking_for_answers_

Active Member
Dec 14, 2017
154
63
32
Boston
✟13,858.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
1. assuming that will is desire, or that will is simply your experience of the strongest desire proving itself.
How is it decided what the strongest desire is? For example, it is a common experience to feel a desire very strongly but still try to resist it because you think that it is not good. What determines which is the stronger desire?

I can't introspect enough to see the full process. Materially & reductionistically (pretending that's a word, lol), it would be when enough neurons light up to cause me to go do a thing. At a higher level, I may desire to steal a snack from the corner store, but some combination of things like empathy/desire to serve the Lord/fear of being caught/whatever will cause the net desire in that moment to b

2. Is it possible to be wrong about what you actually desire? Another common experience is to pursue a desire, only to find out once you attain it that you didn't really want it. Were you wrong about what you desired? if so what determines what desires are real and which aren't?

Yes and no. Let's say that I sacrifice social & family life for my career, thinking it would make me happy. Then years later I realize I am wrong. But even though what I really wanted was to be happy all along, at one point my net desire was to do that through career, since my rationality believed (wrongly) that that would accomplish the goal. However, at the time that my rationality realized that friends and family were the better route to happiness, my net desire changed, and as a result so did my actions.

3. Is it possible for you to voluntarily change your desires? If so, how does this occur? What determines which desires you change, which you change to, etc?

Depends on how you look at it. I don't want to go to the gym at this moment, but I do want to be fit, so I force myself to go through sheer force of will (heh). However, this is conflating will with enjoyment. I really willed to go all along, though my lack of enjoyment required hyping myself up as an immediate intermediary action.

------------------------------------

For random, I'm just going by the dictionary definition: the definition of random

"proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern"

Specifically "without reason".

------------------------------------

As for going in circles - I do apologize, I promise I am genuinely trying to understand and doing my best to both see from your perspective as best I can, while also challenging it with what I currently see. I hope that this both helps me change my worldview when it is wrong and hone my communication skills.

I'm trying to find the exact disconnect between our views. I think that would help me a lot.

Let's ignore the material world for the sake of argument and imagine as best we can the spirit in the decision making process. Like some sort of ghost in a supernatural command center using the brain as an interface to the material world. We'll call him Bob. Bob's decision making process is a collection of non-atomic "events", just like mine, but even if it is an atomic event, it really doesn't matter. It's immaterial, but there is still some processes by which Bob makes his decision.

For each atomic, indivisible event E in the decision making process, either E is determined, or E is not determined. So "free will" and "random" have to fit together in the same category.

Bob is free from compulsion to force my brain to act in a loving manner. He loves God, he loves others, so he wants to make my brain spend this Saturday volunteering at the soup kitchen. Is he truly therefore capable of choosing otherwise come Saturday morning then? If so, what caused him to do so? This is where I struggle understanding libertarian free will.

------------------------------------

I geniunely appreciate your help in this discussion. I've had a lot of problems with/questions about libertarian free will and it's been a challenge finding someone interested in discussing things. I'm hesitant to do so in real life because the few people I've brought it up with ended up knowing little about the discussion and I'm kind of afraid of triggering a bad emotional response with people since apparently some find determinism really depressing. So I honestly apprectiate it and apologize if I come across as combative at all.

1. This may sound odd, but the more I think about it, I'm not sure I see what the point of free will is. It seems (from the agents taking tests argument) that we can't describe how a universe world of agents without free will would be any different from one with libertarian agents. If we can't even give a mental model of how those universes would be different, then why would I even want free will? It seems like the only effect is that it gives any gods moral justification for eternal reward/punishment.

2. Couldn't I just argue that I never chose to be given free will? By the time I was born it was already too late. If I hadn't been given this, I never would have been able to make bad choices. Had I had the choice given to me before birth (yes I realize the contradication lol) I would much prefer not having free will. I could live life to it's fullest without being afraid that I picked the wrong god and ending up in someone's hell as a result. In fact, it seems like things would be a lot better if none of us had this free will - at least suffering would end at death, for the 80%+ of humans throughout history who weren't Christian.

3. If an adult gives their 4-year-old a gun, we would absolutely hold them responsible when things go wrong, not the child. The 100% failure rate of free will (every single free agent has chosen sin) would indicate that it is inevitable that a free agent will chose wrong at least once - like a child with a loaded gun. So why do we think that libertarian free will sufficiently puts moral responsibility on the agent, and not the one who gave him/her the weapon?
 
Upvote 0

Simon_Templar

Not all who wander are lost
Jun 29, 2004
7,692
1,040
49
Visit site
✟32,462.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I can't introspect enough to see the full process. Materially & reductionistically (pretending that's a word, lol), it would be when enough neurons light up to cause me to go do a thing. At a higher level, I may desire to steal a snack from the corner store, but some combination of things like empathy/desire to serve the Lord/fear of being caught/whatever will cause the net desire in that moment to b



Yes and no. Let's say that I sacrifice social & family life for my career, thinking it would make me happy. Then years later I realize I am wrong. But even though what I really wanted was to be happy all along, at one point my net desire was to do that through career, since my rationality believed (wrongly) that that would accomplish the goal. However, at the time that my rationality realized that friends and family were the better route to happiness, my net desire changed, and as a result so did my actions.



Depends on how you look at it. I don't want to go to the gym at this moment, but I do want to be fit, so I force myself to go through sheer force of will (heh). However, this is conflating will with enjoyment. I really willed to go all along, though my lack of enjoyment required hyping myself up as an immediate intermediary action.

------------------------------------

For random, I'm just going by the dictionary definition: the definition of random

"proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern"

Specifically "without reason".

------------------------------------

As for going in circles - I do apologize, I promise I am genuinely trying to understand and doing my best to both see from your perspective as best I can, while also challenging it with what I currently see. I hope that this both helps me change my worldview when it is wrong and hone my communication skills.

I'm trying to find the exact disconnect between our views. I think that would help me a lot.

Let's ignore the material world for the sake of argument and imagine as best we can the spirit in the decision making process. Like some sort of ghost in a supernatural command center using the brain as an interface to the material world. We'll call him Bob. Bob's decision making process is a collection of non-atomic "events", just like mine, but even if it is an atomic event, it really doesn't matter. It's immaterial, but there is still some processes by which Bob makes his decision.

For each atomic, indivisible event E in the decision making process, either E is determined, or E is not determined. So "free will" and "random" have to fit together in the same category.

Bob is free from compulsion to force my brain to act in a loving manner. He loves God, he loves others, so he wants to make my brain spend this Saturday volunteering at the soup kitchen. Is he truly therefore capable of choosing otherwise come Saturday morning then? If so, what caused him to do so? This is where I struggle understanding libertarian free will.

------------------------------------

I geniunely appreciate your help in this discussion. I've had a lot of problems with/questions about libertarian free will and it's been a challenge finding someone interested in discussing things. I'm hesitant to do so in real life because the few people I've brought it up with ended up knowing little about the discussion and I'm kind of afraid of triggering a bad emotional response with people since apparently some find determinism really depressing. So I honestly apprectiate it and apologize if I come across as combative at all.

1. This may sound odd, but the more I think about it, I'm not sure I see what the point of free will is. It seems (from the agents taking tests argument) that we can't describe how a universe world of agents without free will would be any different from one with libertarian agents. If we can't even give a mental model of how those universes would be different, then why would I even want free will? It seems like the only effect is that it gives any gods moral justification for eternal reward/punishment.

2. Couldn't I just argue that I never chose to be given free will? By the time I was born it was already too late. If I hadn't been given this, I never would have been able to make bad choices. Had I had the choice given to me before birth (yes I realize the contradication lol) I would much prefer not having free will. I could live life to it's fullest without being afraid that I picked the wrong god and ending up in someone's hell as a result. In fact, it seems like things would be a lot better if none of us had this free will - at least suffering would end at death, for the 80%+ of humans throughout history who weren't Christian.

3. If an adult gives their 4-year-old a gun, we would absolutely hold them responsible when things go wrong, not the child. The 100% failure rate of free will (every single free agent has chosen sin) would indicate that it is inevitable that a free agent will chose wrong at least once - like a child with a loaded gun. So why do we think that libertarian free will sufficiently puts moral responsibility on the agent, and not the one who gave him/her the weapon?

I intend to read through your post above and respond with my thoughts, but I feel I need to apologize first.

I realized that I was doing the very thing I was accusing you of in that I wasn't taking the time to properly understand your view point and to understand what you meant by the terms you used etc. I was applying my own categories and frame of reference over them and assuming that I understood where you were coming from etc. In retrospect I don't think I was doing you justice and I was dismissing your thoughts too quickly. I wasn't living up to my own standards of intellectual honesty and integrity.

I wrongly tend to invest a lot of my identity into intellect and thus I sometimes feel threatened when my ideas are challenged, rather than taking the time to consider honestly.

I will continue the conversation tomorrow when I have time to read through your response above, but I wanted to say this right away.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,390.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
If there were certain proof that could not be doubted, faith would not be important. Doubt can always exist. I could doubt the world is more than a day old, for instance, or that we aren't living in the Matrix. So doubt is something we must live with as a fact of life.

None of this of course means its unreasonable to have faith. But reason does not automatically lead to the conclusions of faith.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: ToBeLoved
Upvote 0

looking_for_answers_

Active Member
Dec 14, 2017
154
63
32
Boston
✟13,858.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I intend to read through your post above and respond with my thoughts, but I feel I need to apologize first.

I realized that I was doing the very thing I was accusing you of in that I wasn't taking the time to properly understand your view point and to understand what you meant by the terms you used etc. I was applying my own categories and frame of reference over them and assuming that I understood where you were coming from etc. In retrospect I don't think I was doing you justice and I was dismissing your thoughts too quickly. I wasn't living up to my own standards of intellectual honesty and integrity.

I wrongly tend to invest a lot of my identity into intellect and thus I sometimes feel threatened when my ideas are challenged, rather than taking the time to consider honestly.

I will continue the conversation tomorrow when I have time to read through your response above, but I wanted to say this right away.
No worries! God bless
 
Upvote 0

ToBeLoved

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
18,705
5,790
✟322,365.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
If there were certain proof that could not be doubted, faith would not be important. Doubt can always exist. I could doubt the world is more than a day old, for instance, or that we aren't living in the Matrix. So doubt is something we must live with as a fact of life.

None of this of course means its unreasonable to have faith. But reason does not automatically lead to the conclusions of faith.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,390.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Lee Strobel, an investigative reporter, went about it another way. As an atheist he tried to prove that there was no evidence to support the Resurrection. By doing this he became convinced that the Resurrection of Christ must be true.

Evidence for the resurrection doesn't make Christian faith logically necessary, though. Some religious people also inquire into the nature of Christianity and come to the opposite conclusions. In fact some of the most militant atheists took that path.
 
Upvote 0

Simon_Templar

Not all who wander are lost
Jun 29, 2004
7,692
1,040
49
Visit site
✟32,462.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Lets begin by clarifying some ideas about freedom and capability.

I define "will" in the classical definition of "a power of the soul" that is specifically the power to make choices. In classical platonic and Christian philosophy the object of the will is love. The object meaning it's purpose or the thing it is meant to do and pursue.

I think that Intellect is also important to this discussion. I define intellect, again in the classic definition, as the power of the soul which knows things. This includes not just abstract ideas, but knows real things, both physical and spiritual as they are in themselves. In classical platonic and Christian philosophy the object of the intellect is Truth.

When I speak of "freedom" I don't mean an utter and complete lack of constraint or limitation. I mean free within the limits of your nature.

Using the example of a person and our ability to move. We have the power of locomotion. We can move ourselves around. However, there are limits on that power. I cannot fly, for example. The fact that there are limits of this kind does not mean that I am not free to move. My nature limits the ways in which I can move, and so long as I can move in those ways, I am free because I am free to be what I was created to be. I'm free to be what I am. To believe that I would need to be able to fly, to move freely would be something like thinking that I need to be a bird, in order to be a free human. This is actually antithetical to real freedom, because if I were to become a bird, I would no longer be human, and no longer be fully myself. This would actually be a huge restriction and loss of myself. This is actually a mistake that is growing more and more common in our world today.

However, though human beings are free by nature to move according to their nature, it is entirely possible that I can become less free by further constraining my ability due to accident or poor choices. For example, I could become injured, which might impair my ability to use my natural freedom. Or I could begin to lose capability through lack of exercise. In these cases my natural freedom is impaired, but not entirely lost.

It is also worthy of note that I can fail to reach the full potential of my freedom because I can move better if I practice at it and exercise etc. My full potential can fail to be realized, just as I can degrade my ability from it's starting point.

Lastly, it is possible that I can lose my freedom either by becoming so broken physically that I can no longer use it, or by being externally restrained, such as being put in prison, or in a straight jacket.

The principles here are as follows
1. Freedom is not unlimited, but exists according to our nature. True freedom is the freedom to be fully yourself, to the best of your potential.
2. We can limit our own freedom either by not striving to reach our full potential, or by actively reducing our ability through bad choices. It can also be reduced by circumstances that happen to us.
3. We can lose our freedom by becoming so broken that we no longer have any capacity to use it, or by being externally constrained.


For random, I'm just going by the dictionary definition: the definition of random

"proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern"

Specifically "without reason".

For each atomic, indivisible event E in the decision making process, either E is determined, or E is not determined. So "free will" and "random" have to fit together in the same category.

Bob is free from compulsion to force my brain to act in a loving manner. He loves God, he loves others, so he wants to make my brain spend this Saturday volunteering at the soup kitchen. Is he truly therefore capable of choosing otherwise come Saturday morning then? If so, what caused him to do so? This is where I struggle understanding libertarian free will.

The reason that I balk at the use of the term random is that to me random conotes the lack of intellect. Which would more or less be similar to saying "without reason" in the sense of reason as thought. It might not be the same as saying "without reason" if by "reason" you don't mean thought, but instead mean cause, or explanation.

In the material world, in classical physical mechanics, randomness is impossible. There is only the appearance of randomness because the system is so complex that we don't understand it and there are so many unknowns that we can't predict.

In the realm of mind, it is debatable whether randomness is possible or not. It is likely not provable either way because there is too much of a black box that we can't see beyond. For example, no one really knows where ideas come from. Some ideas, of course, are prompted by the world around or by other people etc. However some apparently come out of no where. At least no where that we can see.

You could call this random, but we really don't know what it is. If you believe the traditional Christian spiritual worldview, then it is likely that some of these ideas are inspiration from both angelic and demonic forces. Perhaps the rest are inspiration directly from God? We simply don't know.
This deals with ideas, not will directly.

The will, however, is intimately connected and intertwined with the intellect. They are distinct powers but they work together very closely and they direct each other.

When we make choices, our will almost always makes reference to what we know (ie the intellect). However, the intellect is also directed by the will because the will chooses what ideas and information we accept and what we reject.

As a historical note, there is a theological school of thought that places the divine will absolutely prior to and superior to the divine intellect. In other words, God does not will according to what he knows, rather he knows according to what he wills. In this view God's will is essentially arbitrary and what you would call random. This school of thought is known as Voluntarism. It was a response by philosophers who thought that classical views of intellect and will placed too much restraint on the freedom and sovereignty of God. They thought that if God wills according to what he knows, this implies that God is bound by knowledge, which then must be of something higher than God.

The classical view is that God is constrained only be his own nature. This is to say that the only thing God cannot do, is be other than what he is. The only thing he can't do, is not be God. This would include things like saying, God is by nature just, therefore God can't be unjust, because to be unjust would be to not be God. It would be to become something other than himself. This displays, again, the principle that true freedom is not freedom to do anything whatsoever, rather true freedom is the ability to be the fullness of who you are, or who you are meant to be.

Now, your statement

For each atomic, indivisible event E in the decision making process, either E is determined, or E is not determined. So "free will" and "random" have to fit together in the same category.

This is really the crux of the issue here. You allow only two categories. Predetermined, and random. As long as you assume this to be true from the beginning, you can never come to any other conclusion.

However, this statement, that there are only these two categories, is not itself provable. It must be taken as self-evident. In order to prove it, you would have to prove that all other categories are impossible.

What I am suggesting to you is that there is a third category that exists between "predetermined" and "random" For lack of a better term I will just call this category "will".

I assert that will is not predetermined because when faced with any given choice, will has the real power to choose any of the available options. This power is real and not apparent only.

I also assert that will is not random because it usually has an end goal in mind and because it makes reference to what is known by the intellect in order to decide between the options available.

I admit that the reference that will makes to intellect, as well as the usual existence of an end goal can be conceived of as influences upon the will, but I deny that those influences constitute complete compulsion or restraint, such that the choice between options is not real but only apparent.

I here make reference back to the three principles I established above regarding freedom. It is possible that the degree of influence may very, meaning we have more or less freedom in any given individual circumstance. It is also possible that any given individual may have become so constrained as to no longer be truly free to make said choices. This however, is a condition of the individual, not of the human nature.

Now, I don't think I can prove conclusively that this third category exists. However, I don't think I have to prove that. All I have to show is that it is possible. The real frame of the question begins with the human lived experience of free will. This lived experience is the basic assumption. In order to deny this lived experience, you have to prove that the idea as we experience it is impossible, and therefore our experience must be concluded to be an illusion. I don't have to prove that our experience is real, I only have to show that it is possible.

You have already stated that you think it is impossible because there are only two categories "predetermined" and "random".

I am asserting that your claim of two categories is not self-evidently true and that there is can possibly be a third category in between the two.

Thus you would have to show that this third category is itself impossible.

I outline all of that because that is how the logical argument and philosophical inquiry would work formally. I fully understand that you are not beholden to any of that to continue to deny my view and believe your own.

It may simply come down to you believing that two categories is self-evident and me believing that it isn't.

This is one of the reasons that logic can't give the kind of certainty that math does. Logic relies upon premises and eventually all premises must rely upon "first principles" or things that are simply self-evidently true. Any logical argument can be "defeated" by simply denying it's premises. It's just a matter of how ridiculous or reasonable it is to deny the premise in question.

For the record, I also have theological reasons why I believe in the existence of free will.

The first is that God must have free will.
If we look back to your argument that predetermined relies upon the existence of pre-existing conditions. Another way of saying this is that the cause of a choice predetermines the choice.
Yet God is, by definition uncaused. There is no pre-existing state.

You could argue that there are "underlying rules" based upon what I said earlier about God's nature. You could conceive of his nature as "rules" but I think this would actually be a serious mistake because rules imply restriction and God's nature is not restriction in the sense that we think of it. It isn't limitation. He is infinite. Our nature places limits upon us, but God's nature does not.

This would have to mean that God acts randomly and "wills" randomly, if your two category view is accurate. However, I think it is also self-evident that God acts with purpose and knowledge, therefore his actions cannot be called random.

If God exists, I think free will must exist.

I further believe that we have free will because we are made in the image and likeness of God. I believe it is the very nature of personhood to have will. Thus I think all personal beings, including God, humans, and angelic beings, have free will.

As for going in circles - I do apologize, I promise I am genuinely trying to understand and doing my best to both see from your perspective as best I can, while also challenging it with what I currently see. I hope that this both helps me change my worldview when it is wrong and hone my communication skills.

This was as much my fault as yours despite my blaming it all on you.




1. This may sound odd, but the more I think about it, I'm not sure I see what the point of free will is. It seems (from the agents taking tests argument) that we can't describe how a universe world of agents without free will would be any different from one with libertarian agents. If we can't even give a mental model of how those universes would be different, then why would I even want free will? It seems like the only effect is that it gives any gods moral justification for eternal reward/punishment.

The point of free will is love. Love, by definition, must be free or it is not love. Love can't be compelled, it is by definition a choice. This can get confused somewhat because our culture views love as a feeling that seeks and finds self-fulfillment and self-gratification in someone else. This is a false view of love. The real definition of love is to freely give yourself for the good of the other.

I further believe that freedom of will is essential to what it means to be a personal being. I don't think personhood can fully exist without free will. Personally I think this is why hell exists. From God's point of view of pure divine Love, the worst possible thing that can ever happen to a person is to become less than a person. To remove a person's free will would be to destroy them as a person, thus hell must exist because the freedom of those who choose against God must be honored as much as it is possible.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,390.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Meh... Occam easily critiqued Thomism into a language game.

God is not "the Unmoved Mover". He's the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We cannot be sure that Aristotle knew God in any ultimately meaningful way.
 
Upvote 0

Simon_Templar

Not all who wander are lost
Jun 29, 2004
7,692
1,040
49
Visit site
✟32,462.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Meh... Occam easily critiqued Thomism into a language game.

God is not "the Unmoved Mover". He's the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We cannot be sure that Aristotle knew God in any ultimately meaningful way.

In the immortal word of Dwight Shrute, FALSE.

What Occam actually did was remove the foundation upon which the intelligibility of the world rests, paving the way for the descent into madness that is modern thought. He also redefined God from a Loving Father into a arbitrary tyrant who is totally unrelatable.

Furthermore, and rather ironically given his importance to the formation of Reformation thought, he laid the foundation that would eventually completely undermine the authority of scripture in modern thought AND some of his key ideas were taken from Islam.

Of course we don't know anything about Aristotles' personal relationship with God, but we don't need to.
Whether Aristotle knew God in any meaningful way is irrelevant, except of course to Aristotle himself. I don't accept ideas because Aristotle thought of them. I accept ideas because reason bears them out and because they are necessary to accurately explain the world in which we live.

Nothing is true merely because Aristotle said it. However, much that Aristotle said, is true.

I don't believe that God is the Unmoved mover, because Aristotle said it, but because that idea is a logical necessity both if I attempt to reason from the existence of the world I see, AND if there is to be a infinite God who exists above his own creation. The God of the Bible is infinite and transcendent. He is Eternal. These properties are exactly what the Unmoved mover describes. Infinite, transcendent, eternal.
This is precisely why Aristotle is amazing. He reasoned out, from the world around him, that something like The God of the Bible must exist. Paul of course says that this is possible in Romans 1, but Aristotle was one of the few who ever actually did it. Technically Aristotle was following on the heels of his teacher Plato, who followed on the heels of his teacher Socrates.

Now, what they could discover about God by reason alone was limited. However if you bother to actually really look at what they did discover, rather than scorning it, it is quite amazing.

This is what I find so disturbing about comments like this one...
You seem to scorn the idea of the "Unmoved mover" and take pride in believing only in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob... Yet the whole essence of the Unmoved Mover is transcendence. If you deny the the Unmoved mover, you literally deny the transcendence of God. This suggests one of two possible conclusions.

1. you are speaking of and scorning things you don't actually know or understand
or
2. the god you believe in does not transcend the world and is as the pagan gods and therefore is NOT the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

I actually think the second one is a pretty common problem. Many Christians think about God the same basic way that pagans used to think about their gods. Specifically they don't think about God as truly transcendent and all that means. They think of God as just another being who happens to be super powerful. This causes a lot of problems.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,390.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Does Thomist theology posit God as only relating to the world by "created" grace? Was the burning bush the presence of God, or just some kind of created thing? A bit of divine pyrotechnics?

I don't see how Occam has lead to absurdity. What he did was open the way for honest inquiry into the natural world instead of burning people at the stake for suggesting that the earth moves.

I don't know about you but I believe in God as a loving Father because he sent Jesus to die for us on the Cross. When I want to see God's love, I look to the Crucifix, not to metaphysical speculation. Christianity is a relationship first, metanarrative second.

I definitely don't think of God as being like Zeus, like a Mormon would, that he's just somewhere "up there" (on Kolob perhaps). I take classical theism seriously. However, I don't idolize it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Simon_Templar

Not all who wander are lost
Jun 29, 2004
7,692
1,040
49
Visit site
✟32,462.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Does Thomist theology posit God as only relating to the world by "created" grace? Was the burning bush the presence of God, or just some kind of created thing? A bit of divine pyrotechnics?

In Thomist thought Grace is the Divine nature and as such is, in itself, uncreated. Thomas refers to Grace as "created grace" when it becomes present in a creature (that is a created being). By this he does not mean that the Grace itself is called "created" because it is not part of the Divine Nature, but because it has become part of you, the created being. When the grace is given to you, it becomes individuated, just as you are an individual. Essentially what is describing is that when you receive Grace, eternal uncreated Grace is entering into creation and becoming part of it, so he refers to this as "created grace".

In regards to the burning bush, I confess I don't know what, if anything St. Thomas may have said about the burning bush. As a result I can only tell you what I think about the burning bush.

In the burning bush we again see both uncreated and created. You might say we see the uncreated entering into the created.

First, the bush and the fire were physical things, therefore they were created. Physical matter is not eternal. Even if God himself manifests as a flame, a pillar of fire, or a cloud, the visible fire, cloud, etc is a physical thing that is a created manifestation. God is spirit. Even if he is specially directly present, the matter which manifests this presence is not God.

Second, if you read the account of the burning bush carefully you will actually find that there are at least two different persons present in the burning bush. One is identified as Yahweh, and the other as an angel, specifically as the Angel of Yahweh. Both Yahweh and the Angel of Yahweh speak to Moses from the Bush.

What this suggests to me is that God is present through a representative. God is really speaking, but the direct presence there is the representative. However, I think that the Angel of Yahweh IS also Yahweh. What I mean is that the Angel of Yahweh (or Angel of the Lord in English translations) is the second person of the Trinity, who is taking on the role of a messenger (ie an angel) to mankind.

I believe that this is the case through out the Old Testament whenever God is directly present that He is present through the Son, acting as the envoy/messenger of the Father. This is why John can say in his gospel that no one has ever seen God, the only God who is at the Father's side has made him known.

He directly referring to the fact that in the OT there were two persons referred to as Yahweh. One Yahweh (the Father) was always transcendent, in heaven, and has never been seen. The other Yahweh, (the Son) comes from the side of the Father (the first Yahweh) and has made him known.


I don't see how Occam has lead to absurdity. What he did was open the way for honest inquiry into the natural world instead of burning people at the stake for suggesting that the earth moves.

First off, the idea that the Church stifled honest inquiry like this is completely historically inaccurate. This is an old myth that keeps getting perpetuated through anti-Catholic prejudice. Inquiry into the natural world goes back to Thales of Miletus, and was especially taught by Aristotle. Virtually all of what would become the sciences were begun by Catholic monks and fostered in monasteries and Catholic universities.

Occam is famous for the following ideas

Nominalism - the rejection of universal realism, this is essentially the first phase of skepticism. It is the assertion that universals do not exist. Only particulars exist and all things that we call universals are simply names or categories that we have invented in our head. The first step of nominalism means that platonic "forms" can't exist. This means that there is no unifying categories that group individual things together. So for example, there is no such thing as "humanity" there is only individual human beings. There is no such thing as "treeness" that defines what trees are and groups all trees together as one kind of being. There are only individual trees. The idea of "treeness" is something we made up to explain the similarities between individual trees.
This also means that universal principles like Justice and Goodness don't exist. They are just names that we invented to try and group together individual cases that we think are similar.

The progression from this idea is what eventually makes the world unintelligible in modern philosophy. It denies the idea of shared nature. Since shared natures don't exist you can't know anything about "trees" or "rocks" for example, because there are only individual instances and what is true of one may not be true of another.

This undermines our ability to know anything true about the world, but it also begins to undermine t he objectivity of language itself. It began to shift from the idea that words are tied to actual real things, to the idea that words are simply labels that we make up meanings for.

In other words, this was the birth of relativism.

Voluntarism - The core idea of voluntarism is that God's defining attribute is power. His power and freedom are not directed according to his nature, or his knowledge, because voluntarism defines these as limits upon God. As a result God is completely arbitrary. God does not will things because they are good, rather good is whatever God decides it to be.

In this way of looking at things, God does not do things because they are loving, we call things loving because God did them.

This is one of the ideas that Occam gets from Islam, perhaps unknowingly. When Occam was at the University of Paris the writings of the Muslim philosopher and 'polymath' Averroes were introduced to the school. Averroes was most well known among the Europeans for his commentaries on Aristotle. He was so well respected that he was known simply as "The Commentator". One of the things Averroes wrote was dealing with an Islamic theologian who attacked Muslims that studied Aristotle because he thought their philosophic views restricted the power of Allah. This Muslim theologian had two major ideas that influenced Occam. Voluntarism, described above, and Occasionalism. Occasionalism is the idea that causality is not governed by natural law, but directly by God's will. What this means is that when something happens, it does not happen because of a natural cause, but because God directly willed it to happen.

Occam didn't fully embrace occasionalism, but he did use ideas from it to formulate a new version of causality that denies the classical understanding of cause and effect.

Duplex Veritas - Occam, along with Marcilius of Padua, his colleague at the university both advanced the idea that truths about the natural world and truths about God or the spiritual world are two completely separate truths. Occam held that they can directly contradict each other and yet both still be true.

He also advocated that because these were two totally separate truths, study of the natural world can tell you nothing about God and the study of theology can tell you nothing about the natural world.

His view on this was directly played out in that he argued that natural reason and logic denied the doctrine of the Eucharist and the real presence, but that it should still be believed theologically because that was a separate truth.

Incidentally, this is what got him in trouble. He was called to testify about his denial of the Eucharist so it could be determined if he was denying the faith or not.

This idea of two truths is what laid the foundation for the denial of scripture in the modern era. It relegated divinely revealed truth to a purely, personal, religious matter. While natural truth was held to rule the public square.

Caesero-Papism - Again, both Occam and Padua advanced this idea. Essentially they argued that the Church only had authority in religious matters and in matters of public life the state ruled supreme over the Church. This combined with Duplex Veritas essentially formed the basis for banishing religion from public life and began the process of secularizing our whole culture.

I don't know about you but I believe in God as a loving Father because he sent Jesus to die for us on the Cross. When I want to see God's love, I look to the Crucifix, not to metaphysical speculation. Christianity is a relationship first, metanarrative second.

Good, the same was true for St. Thomas Aquinas. He assiduously followed the example of St. Augustine who adopted whatever in philosophy agreed with the Faith and rejected or amended whatever did not. I am, of course, not suggesting that St. Thomas is perfect or right about everything he ever said. I probably disagree with him about some things and I'm sure he was wrong about something. He was, however, I am convinced, one of the most brilliant men ever to have lived.

William of Occam, on the other hand, said that God could have crucified a donkey for your sins and He could have made murder a virtue and martyrdom a mortal sin. In his view, if God had felt so inclined, murder could have been an act of love, and the supreme act of love could have left you looking at a donkey on your crucifix rather than the Son of God.

I definitely don't think of God as being like Zeus, like a Mormon would, that he's just somewhere "up there". I take classical theism seriously. However, I don't idolize it.

Good. I don't either, I just happen to think it is mostly true, and that the truths it conveys are vitally important.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,918
Vancouver
✟147,506.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
....
I don't believe that God is the Unmoved mover, because Aristotle said it, but because that idea is a logical necessity both if I attempt to reason from the existence of the world I see.....
I am not great philosopher for sure, and I barely keep up with your knowledge on the subject (although your writing style is much more legible for me than Thomas Aquinas, or Kant, God forbid).

But if we accept the limitations of a materialistic world view, and think things through, accepting the science of finding causes for effects, contingency is pretty much the reality that describes our material world. Actions and reactions describe the flow of events, and everything is contingent on what came before. Every thing is contingent. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and the conservation of matter as it changes states defines contingent reality. This is just basic science.

It would seem very reasonable to suppose then that the ultimate cause of the material universe lies outside of the material universe. Transcendance is a necessary pre-condition for the creation of the material universe. Material does not spontaneously appear, not according to scientific thought anyway. Science in fact dispelled the belief that people once had in such spontaneous generation. (The mold on the rye bread did not spontaneously create itself, although if you eat it you might see things differently than that reality for sure).

The ultimate reason for the universe, which is Mystery, therefore goes beyond the ability of science to describe it, for science, by definition, limits itself to the material world.

One is only left to ponder the nature of our ultimate Creator. Three choices exist. The nature of that Transcendant Reality, that Biblical "I AM" if your will, is either good, or bad, or indifferent. I suppose a fourth choice might be some combination or permutation of the three, even though 'amoral' and 'indifferent' boil down to about the same thing, I think.

Many strands of Western thinking have led us down some very dark paths in contemplating the Ultimate nature of the Transcendant as indifferent or even Evil, as the Marquis de Sade put forth.

The Bible puts for the idea that the Ultimate Nature of our Creator is loving and merciful and caring and just.

I think that it is hubris alone that keeps the materialistic naturalist from accepting the idea that the "I AM" of Transcendant reality exists, even if reason can only point to it, rather than actually measuring or quantifying it, as science is wont to do. It is the pride that Nietzche touched upon when he mused about how we could not imagine God without desiring to be God (or something to that effect).

But it is not hubris to believe that the nature of the Transcendant is pure evil, or indifferent to the point of being completely morally random. This is the problem that Job wrestles with.

It is that leap of faith (or that leap into faith for anyone who has watched recent episodes of the Good Place) that has us choosing to believe that the Ultimate reality of the Transcendant is good, and kind and loving and just and perfect in every way.
But it is not just faith either. This touches upon something that you alluded to earlier that caught my eye, something about what is pragmatic, or practical.
What is the point of believing in Truth if is not practical, if it is not ultimately to our benefit?
In terms of actually going about the business of living in this world, there is only one choice that is going to lead us to somewhere better, and that is the choice of Faith, Christian faith even.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0