Men Can't Fly - Freewill and Predestination

"A man has free choice to the extent that he is rational." - St. Aquinas

Men can't fly. For some of you this news comes with a bit of unsavory repetition as from a college professor trying to re-illustrate another thing you “can't” do. For others it comes as a challenge, to stand up to that old-witted, somewhat balding professor and contradict his beliefs that mere words will eternally align your actions to his will. But I believe one idea never darted past your sight, an idea that may have slipped your rationality: “If men can't fly, then men can't do anything else.”

In the eternally polemical discourse on Christian Theology, free-will and predestination has come full tilt again. And it is here, in predestination's artifices to weaken the resolve of the free-will position, that the argument, “since man cannot fly, it only follows that man does not have complete free-will” has been fashioned. And it is here that I believe any systematic approach to test this claim will falter at the presuppositional level.

As with all claims, they are packaged with presuppositions and I believe it is necessary to expand on this point. If I claim, “Bob is at Save-Mart” I am presupposing that “Bob is not at Bel-Air” or, in fact, Bob is at no other place but Save-Mart because man is limited to one place at one time. We could further modify the statement to be more specific, “Bob is at the Save-Mart off of 1234 Main Street and 0987 Central Avenue.” With only one Save-Mart being on the corner of Main St. and Central Ave, we know exactly where Bob is and know exactly where Bob is not (ie. At anywhere else in general or at any other Save-Mart in particular). When predestination claims, “If men can't fly, then it follows that men can't have complete free-will,” we have to do the same - Ask what the claim's presupposes and test if the answer follows.

So, what is the presuppositions to the claim, “If men can't fly, then it follows that men can't have complete free-will?” Theoretically, there are limitless presuppositions to any claim, however, there is one that I would have us concern our attention with. The presupposition of this claim is “Man cannot do something contrary to his nature.” In other words, this predestination claim is an inferential statement that draws from the intrinsic limitations of mankind through their “created nature.” Meaning, mankind, by nature, could never will himself to fly. This is a clear example of mankind's physical limitations, but does this statement concern itself with the nonphysical virtue we call will? Does this statement create a dispute about how free man's will is, or does it simply verify a well known fact, “that man can't fly?”

The only exception I know to this presupposition – that the limits of nature creates limits of free-will – is God Himself. So the answer to this dilemma inextricably resides in another question. Do all things that are limited in their nature have limited-Freewill? Depending on your theological and philosophical stand-point, most agree that God cannot act against the laws of logic (ie. Creating a square triangle) or act against His own nature of perfections and virtues (i.e. He cannot be an unjust judge). Thus the case is made that there is a contradiction in predestination's claim. If God has free-will yet is constrained by His nature, then how is it that mankind has limited free-will because he is constrained by his nature?

To address this contradiction, we are left with two horns. The first horn would say, “it follows that mankind, just as God, has limited free-will because both are limited by their nature” This horn nullifies the entire argument of free-will because it simply denies the existence of free-will at all levels. If accepted, this claim would confer a “limited free-will” upon God through inference, “that all things which are limited in their nature must have limited-Freewill.”

But I believe another idea exists. Perhaps, it would be best to acknowledge the theory that all things have limits and restrictions because of definition. That infinity could not be anything else than what it is, that perhaps God always was, always is, and always will be because God was never not, and perhaps when God said, “I am who I am” that it meant a bit more than a mystically veiled quote. The other horn is complete free-will in our decisions, and restrictions are no more inherent in mankind than they are in God. That man is supplied in creation, through the rationality of the mind and conviction of the soul, the ability to accept God for who He is and the sacrifice of His son, or to reject those claims and confer the consequences of one's own actions. To me, “it follows that mankind, created in the image or likeness of God, would have the same category of free-will. A free-will limited by their nature, but complete in their ability to choose between a moral good and a moral evil.”

Any claim can be tested, but not all claims endure the suffering. Predestination and the claim “all men cannot fly, thus man has only limited free-will,” are one of those statements that cannot endure. The first refutation is to take the claim to its utmost ramification – that all things limited have limited free-will. This cannot be the answer because it creates a God that is subjected, or lower than, His own being, creating a variation of euthyphro's dilemma. Thus it is in the latter that the answer is found. That God, creating man in His own image, created mankind with the same responsibility of action. For he who does, is he who receives.

Ron Paul and Abortion

http://prolifeprofiles.com/ronpaul
[My Response to above Source follows below:]

A couple of weeks ago I was debating a friend about Ron Paul. He turned around and said, "I would never vote for Ron Paul because he wants to legalize heroine." His response is very similar to this article because it demonstrates a general lack of knowledge about our government and its operations. As I would be willing to explain Ron Paul's position on Abortion and why this article is wrong in its presuppositions, I must first explain two points: the structure of the United States government and the difference between form and content.

Form and content is a bit more philosophical than I enjoy explaining throught text, but it will demonstrate the severity of what this article is propounding. Picture a blue box filled with teddy bears. You continue to pack these boxes into a truck where you will later take these teddy bears to some children at their homes. But here is the catch. The blue boxes that you use to fill with teddy bears are the same boxes that other people are allowed to use but can fill them with anything they desire - as long as it fits in the box. One day, as you are placing a box of teddy bears into the back of your truck, to your dismay, you find hundreds of other blue boxes but they are filled with gasoline, weapons, fishing rods, and garden hoses. You see the problem. What are the children going to do with all this other stuff? The once child friendly blue boxes filled with teady bears are now the same blue boxes filled with harmfull or useless items.

Now, knowing this "catch" and it's outcome - that anyone can use your boxes and fill them with whatever they can fit into them - you know what you need to do: design a box that fits as tightly around the teddy bear as possible; Only allowing enough room for a teddy bear to fit inside. This, in short, is what every political debate is about - jamming a law into a box that doesn't rightly fit.

Next is our governmental structure. The constitution is our box (our form) that we are able to stuff our government (contents) in, and whatever doesn't fit inside this box should be removed. But to understand why it should be removed, even if a policy has its solidarity in christian principles, could only be explained by the natural universalism of our government. As with our teddy bear boxes being filled with harmful or useless obejcts, we must be proactive in questioning the box for our govnernment. We ask, "How do we operate a government with religious freedom, founded on Christian principles, while protecting citizens from both a minority(tyranny of the powerful) and a majority (tyranny of the populace)?" The proposed answer was the constitution and its proposed legislative process.

With this information, we can address the issue of banning abortion at the Federal Level. The contents of this proposition is agreeable - we want abortion banned. But what is harrowing is the form, or the box, by which it comes. The dissappointments of this box, or form, by which it must be passed are threefold. First, it would give the government another "unnamed power." The Federal Government, constitutionally, is only allowed to prosecute for three crimes: treason, crimes on the high sea, and counterfitting. The reason the U.S. Federal government was restricted leads me to my second point: the constitution was created to allow the least ability for a U.S. Citizen to appear before the powers of our nation to defend for his crime. Instead, the constitution promotes state-side prosecution and that a U.S. citizen should stand before a "jury of peers" for defense. Passing a bill against abortion only provides another avenue, and another reason, for the Federal Government to propound the idea that they are "allowed" to prosecute individual U.S. Citizens for committed crimes. And my third point is that it provides a path for the Federal Government to pass bills that would take the same form as this bill (ie. A bill that can be passed as long has it had sufficient moral imperitive, regardless of human right or "correctness".). This is why Ron Paul has continued to be against a Federal Law for or against abortion - it violates our constitutional form. Now we may ask, "what does he stand for?"

This is where the article had it all wrong, they say he is pro-choice. But let me ask you this, is a canidate that is for repealing Roe v. Wade and pulling all Federal Funds from Planned Parenthood a pro-choice canidate? Can someone be pro-choice yet strive to repeal abortion's single most powerful legal document and strive for pulling their single greatest funding source? I would say not. But again, the question still has not been answered. What does Ron Paul stand for?

Ron Paul stands for upholding both the United States Government process and for upholding the form and content. He believes that the best option is for the states to make the decision. And that decision does have Federal Impact. How? Because states are the only entity in the U.S. Constitution that is allowed to amend the constitution without Federal approval, and the only entity that is currently allowed to prosecute such crime. What he believes is that the unnamed power of birth regulation should be give to the "peers of those who would be punished" and not given to those who represent those people. He believes that those closest to the family should have the power to regulate what goes on in the family.

At this point I will take the time to answer specific questions that were posed in the article.

1) States Prosecute But Cannot Decriminalize Murder.

Honestly? Yes, states can decriminalize murder, but more specifically they can decriminalize or criminalize abortion. When Benjamin Franklin left liberty hall a woman approached and asked, "Is it a republic?" he replied very wittingly, "If you can keep it." In those five words he summed up the entire power given to those who under the constitution. That A) States can revise the constitution at will and B) that a jury can overturn any law in court.[Please Note - there is a philosophical assumption by what the writer means by "murder." By definition there is no such thing as "permissible murder"]

2) Human Rights Supersede States' Rights; "then they would also have the right to deprive any other class of citizen of life and liberty."

The problem is that the passage of an anti-abortion act would create the ability to pass further laws based on a "human rights" condition. Would you consider the banning of certain foods in the name of "human health" considered a good or bad thing? There are legitamate arguments for both sides. How about banning the number of fast food resturants because people can't handle themselves? There are good arguments for both sides. How about banning certain religions or fire arms in the name of saving lives? There are historical arguements for both sides. Ultimately, if you pass a bill as a "human rights trumps all rights" card you have paved a golden path to a plethora of abuses and unjust laws by both the minorty and the majority.