The Cosmological Argument and Free Will

[Mudhammam]

Oh, I see.

No, I don't think WLC would say actions are un-caused. I haven't heard or read him say such a thing anyway. But I think whenever a conversation gets on to 'free will' I want to say "free from what?" as I don't think anyone believes wills are totally free (e.g. from genetic or environmental factors).

True, but one Q, which you may or may not be able to clarify for me: If WLC and other libertarian free-willists allow that actions are caused (determined), what is the debate? Is it merely that determinists argue that actions are only determined by genetic and environmental factors whereas free-willists have a third causal element, the mysterious soul stuff? That seems to change the dynamic of the controversy, as that still concedes determination of action, whether a person "blames" their genes or their environment or some mysterious "other thing" (all of which can still fall under the domain of the "self").

There is no certainly that the universe had a beginning. It may be that the universe we perceive is the latest in a series of iterations, each one collapsing and 'bouncing' to cause the next.

While there is of course no certainty in science, doesn't the current Big Bang model theorize that all space-time and matter-energy had a beginning? If we're still holding out that this was merely an "event horizon," how can we, based on the current evidence, call this broader dimension a "material" Universe?

To my understanding, the cosmological argument, as presented by WLC, does not indicate the kind of cause: final, formal, material, or efficient. Likewise, the idea of something beginning must address why things persist in their being and yet remain subject to change. As for me, I find the concept of an unmoved mover firmly established within Neo-Scholastic philosophy.

I see. What would be your guess as to the kind of cause WLC libertarian free-willists would ascribe to the Universe and that to free will which allows the former to be determined while the latter not?