Free Will and The Cosmological Argument.

LiamOS · Post by **LiamOS** » Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:54 pm

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 · Post by **EduChris** » Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:56 am

AkiThePirate wrote:...The probability of one's entire physical and neurological system being altered by the difference between the two(Moving one's foot, moving one's finger) in a matter of seconds is borderline zero. They're comparable with the odds of me swimming across the Atlantic in five minutes, running to the Superbowl and then winning it on my own...

And I would counter that instantaneous decisions may very well be predetermined by the character that we have spent a lifetime forming--sometimes through our being acted upon by external forces, and sometimes by the habits we have decided to inculcate and by the conversations we have had with God in prayer.

scanini · Post by **scanini** » Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:21 am

EduChris wrote:...and sometimes by the habits we have decided to inculcate and by the conversations we have had with God in prayer.

A conversation surely means you hear a voice? This is the problem i have with the religious, they will say something that can only really be taken one way, then will qualify it or change the whole meaning of words later.

Why dont the religious say what they mean straight off the bat?

EduChris · Post by **EduChris** » Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:26 am

scanini wrote:...This is the problem i have with the religious, they will say something that can only really be taken one way, then will qualify it or change the whole meaning of words later...Why dont the religious say what they mean straight off the bat?

I agree that this is a problem, and it happens any time members of different sub-cultures try to communicate. Effort on the part of one group must be reciprocated by effort on the part of the other group in order for communication to occur.

What is "hearing a voice"? Is it not something that happens as signals are sent to the brain and processed there? Many people do report hearing a voice inside their minds; others do not report this, but nevertheless they still believe that somehow God is responding to their prayers.

scanini · Post by **scanini** » Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:09 pm

EduChris wrote:I agree that this is a problem, and it happens any time members of different sub-cultures try to communicate. Effort on the part of one group must be reciprocated by effort on the part of the other group in order for communication to occur.

What is "hearing a voice"? Is it not something that happens as signals are sent to the brain and processed there? Many people do report hearing a voice inside their minds; others do not report this, but nevertheless they still believe that somehow God is responding to their prayers.

Que the qualifier ^ *sigh*

LiamOS · Post by **LiamOS** » Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:24 pm

[color=green]EduChris[/color] wrote:
[color=violet]AkiThePirate[/color] wrote:...The probability of one's entire physical and neurological system being altered by the difference between the two(Moving one's foot, moving one's finger) in a matter of seconds is borderline zero. They're comparable with the odds of me swimming across the Atlantic in five minutes, running to the Superbowl and then winning it on my own...
And I would counter that instantaneous decisions may very well be predetermined by the character that we have spent a lifetime forming--sometimes through our being acted upon by external forces, and sometimes by the habits we have decided to inculcate and by the conversations we have had with God in prayer.

Why should this be so and free will remain intact?

Even in the case of mulling over wines for a few minutes, quantum chaos still doesn't cut it given the scale.

EduChris · Post by **EduChris** » Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:30 pm

AkiThePirate wrote:...Why should this be so and free will remain intact?...

Are you saying that free will must be an all-or-nothing affair? Why not assume that some of our choices can be made on auto-pilot, while others (particularly those which form our character over time) can exhibit an element of freedom?

scanini · Post by **scanini** » Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:36 am

EduChris wrote:
AkiThePirate wrote:...Why should this be so and free will remain intact?...
Are you saying that free will must be an all-or-nothing affair? Why not assume that some of our choices can be made on auto-pilot, while others (particularly those which form our character over time) can exhibit an element of freedom?

Autopilot is not set, making a decision subconciously is still freewill.

You cannot have an already known outcome AND freedom to choose that outcome.

Its not that hard to understand, just dont muddy the waters.

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:34 am

.

scanini wrote:You cannot have an already known outcome AND freedom to choose that outcome.

Exactly. Well said.

scanini wrote:Its not that hard to understand, just dont muddy the waters.

It is not difficult to understand IF one uses reasoning rather than dogma.

Muddying the water with obfuscation and sophism is characteristic of those who attempt to debate without evidence to support their position.

LiamOS · Post by **LiamOS** » Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:16 am

[color=violet]EduChris[/color] wrote:
[color=cyan]AkiThePirate[/color] wrote:...Why should this be so and free will remain intact?...
Are you saying that free will must be an all-or-nothing affair? Why not assume that some of our choices can be made on auto-pilot, while others (particularly those which form our character over time) can exhibit an element of freedom?

Such an assumption rather sounds like an ad hoc postulate.

Things I would like to point out:
One of your key points in arguing for free will is experience; that we feel as if we have free will. Accepting this hypothesis means you don't, and such a feeling is an illusion.
Will you now admit that such an argument means nothing?
Second, while this hypothesis is arguably tenable, it doesn't take into account rash decisions. A case could easily be made for those being the decisions that we would be judged upon, and it still implies a very stern amount of determinism anyway.
Finally, and most importantly, there is no reason for us to assume this hypothesis.

EduChris · Post by **EduChris** » Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:56 am

AkiThePirate wrote:...Such an assumption rather sounds like an ad hoc postulate...

Not at all--at least not from a Christian standpoint. Within the Christian tradition, true freedom involves choosing new habits, forming our character over time, so that we become virtuous (like Jesus). We do not do this strictly on our own power, but rather as a result of the one choice that really matters most: our "yes" to God's call and God's empowerment.

AkiThePirate wrote:...it doesn't take into account rash decisions. A case could easily be made for those being the decisions that we would be judged upon...

And of course we all are sinners. Christians believe we are not judged according to our sinfullness, but rather according to Jesus' righteousness.