Aquinas was a man that brought huge theology to The Church regarding God and all

I mean, I think Aquinas the was last Saint that brought that much to the table. There was Augustine and Anselm and such before him. After him I'm not sure if there was anyone better.

There have appeared either people that have brought ideas that have been condemned or people that realized their "unsual" ideals have been brought up and kinda accepted

Nothing is truly new under the sun, they said to themselves

Palamas is sort of like the Orthodox Aquinas

Gregory Palamas

Ye

Personally I think the EE introduces a composition into the Godhead, but that's something that I leave to those more well read on that area of the theology

Thats where i kinda stepped in

<:sniff:591452013682753536>

I'm that guy who spend their time wondering about God and His Power, all the claims about paradoxes and such

Just to then find himself digging endlessly into it most of the times

Well I'm huge into scholasticism, just specifically the EE is something I havent read much on

If I'm addressing the orthodox I'll debate the filioque or such

Most people would just say "God is unconprehensible" and leave it at that
Old me didnt leave it at that, i dig further and further

I then found myself confident enough to answer questions like "how does God's Omniscient will allow my Free-Will to work" and such

Oh hey did you know there's a way of thought that makes free will and determinism non-contradictory?

Can you tell me then?

Because i have my own case here

Oh yeah it's actually a very interesting argument

On a practical level we could say that the universe is ultimately deterministic, because everything has to have a cause, and for every cause there is always another cause until the first cause

But, when making decisions as humans, we do not feel those constraints; we are unable to. Every decision we make is influenced by our environment, our genetics, etc. But we are not the subject upon which all those factors are acting, we are the sum total of those influences, and we are in turn taking our actions as free beings.

Therefore this argument states that a man is not independent of the factors that influence him, he is in fact the sum total of those factors, and that is why he is free.

But yeah, there are some arguements that claim refute it
But the reason why i said "claim" because the refute can be refuted if we were to take the Freedom Action upon Situations arguement

I do not understand what you said

I personally find that argument rather unconvincing and similar to the Lockean explanation. If the causal laws that determine the flow of water are determining your actions it isn't free will imo.

@Eoppa Do you reject determinism?

Cause and Effect

Not necessarily, I define my causal laws that everything that is in act receives its act from itself or from another.

I've taken a Thomistic approach that I sort of developed myself

In that there are plenty of things in the world that are more qualia than a physical relation. In the same way God can cause our free will by causing it's existence, yet we maintain our own causal power that isn't necessarily determined by that initial cause by God.

Comparing God, Time itself and all that we could and could never thought of will never be anything big if it were to be presenced

<:sniff:591452013682753536>

@Eoppa There is something deeply unsettling about seeing a christian argue that God isn't the first cause of all things

That's not what I'm arguing, I'm rectifying a hard first cause with free will

You said that humans maintain causal power that is not determined by God

It's much more nuanced than I can fit into a paragraph

:/

It's what it reads like

I'm saying that free will is caused by God. From there the sort of 'qualia' if you could call it that of Free will is our choice. That's a horrible explanation, but it might convey the message a bit.

<:sniff:591452013682753536>