Free Will and The Cosmological Argument.

[LiamOS]

The Cosmological Argument - Wikipedia

Many Theists, Deists and Non-Theists argue that not only does the universe's existence necessitate a cause. The Theists and Deists often posit that the cause is a supreme being.
Most Theists and some Deists further posit that said being has granted us free agency; that is to do according to something other than what simple physical interaction would otherwise dictate.


In positing free will, has a violation of causality not been necessarily invoked?
One premise of the Cosmological argument is that causality holds true, which logically dictates that our actions necessitate cause.

For debate:
-Is it possible to reconcile the Cosmological Argument with Free Will?

[EduChris]

...you're assuming that there is a law that emulates gravity but prevents us from doing anything that might be construed as impossible by the average human...

Well, humans aren't supposed to fly, and we're not supposed to orbit the earth, but somehow we've figured out how it can be done. Maybe we still have a bit of "figuring out" to do before we can say that the book of knowledge is finally closed...

[McCulloch]

We can't jump to the moon.

Who is to say what is or isn't possible. Richard Dawkins says that given enough time, it is theoretically possible that a cow could actually jump clear over the moon...(Blind Watchmaker, p. 160).

If that quote was taken in context, then I would reply that Richard Dawkins is wrong. Any creature capable of independently achieving escape velocity and surviving in the relative vacuum of the space between here and the moon and managing re-entry could not be properly called a cow.

Could it be that someone is pulling a quote out of context from Dawkins and twisting it to mean something that the author clearly had no intention of saying? It has happened before. Mind you, Christians have a long tradition of that, beginning with how the New Testament writers quote-mine the Old Testament.

[LiamOS]

You're just throwing out red herrings, now.

Humans weren't supposed to eat some fruit, but apparently we did. That's what the whole 'Free Will' thing is about. That some laws of nature evidently limit us means that, at the very least, 'Free Will' isn't free. At this point, hypothesising that known physical laws are violated in a manner consistent with 'Free Will' provides absurd predictions. Suffice to say that it is much, much more probable that our postulate of 'Free Will' is flawed than there being laws of nature such that 'Free Will' is indistinguishable from a universe where it does not exist.

[EduChris]

...Richard Dawkins is wrong. Any creature capable of independently achieving escape velocity and surviving in the relative vacuum of the space between here and the moon and managing re-entry could not be properly called a cow...

He says the odds against such an occurrence are fantastic, but nevertheless the chance exists, given enough time.

[scanini]

Perhaps we are free only when we pray...

But to say praying can influence gods will says gods will can be changed. That by praying in your present can change what god can see as the conclusion.

Praying cannot work in the parameters you set.

[EduChris]

...to say praying can influence gods will says gods will can be changed...

That is precisely what I am saying. God wants a genuine mutual relationship with us, and therefore God has given us the ability to have an influence on God. This is one way in which the Christian concept of God differs from, say, the Islamic concept.

[LiamOS]

But would God not ultimately have been the cause of our requests of God anyway?

[EduChris]

But would God not ultimately have been the cause of our requests of God anyway?

Christians do believe that no one can come to God unless God first draws that person to him. God does make the first step, but somehow, God leaves it up to us to make the second step.

Maybe this will always be a mystery to science. I'm okay with that, since I don't idolize science. I have nothing to lose by admitting that science doesn't have all the answers.

[LiamOS]

What I meant was that God caused the person's desire to request that specific thing of God.
Rather than being science, this is just logic and causality.

[otseng]

The Cosmological Argument - Wikipedia

Many Theists, Deists and Non-Theists argue that not only does the universe's existence necessitate a cause. The Theists and Deists often posit that the cause is a supreme being.
Most Theists and some Deists further posit that said being has granted us free agency; that is to do according to something other than what simple physical interaction would otherwise dictate.


In positing free will, has a violation of causality not been necessarily invoked?
One premise of the Cosmological argument is that causality holds true, which logically dictates that our actions necessitate cause.

For debate:
-Is it possible to reconcile the Cosmological Argument with Free Will?

Just ignore me. I'm conducting a test.