The Cosmological Argument and Free Will

[bennyboy]

Pickup.

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

I like the quote from James that free will is quagmire of evasion :-)

James believed in free will, or as he calls it "novelty." What he calls a quagmire of evasion is my position, that "free will" (a refined definition of it) and determinism can be reconciled.

Do you see this as a semantic reconciliation? I don't see how you can use normal definitions of determinism and free will and have them work together. If you say something like, "Free will is the experience one has of one's brain's decision-making process," I wouldn't be able to work with that definition.

[Dawsonite]

I find it enough to say that we have 'agency', that we are the agents of our actions (unless coerced), and so we are the ones accountable for our actions.

Could you be so kind as to provide your definition of coercion? It seems to me that a good argument could be made that everything that happens is coerced either by nature or nurture.

[Whateverist]

I find it enough to say that we have 'agency', that we are the agents of our actions (unless coerced), and so we are the ones accountable for our actions.

Could you be so kind as to provide your definition of coercion? It seems to me that a good argument could be made that everything that happens is coerced either by nature or nurture.

Not addressed to me but that never stopped me before. I would say that coercion is when your natural drive or nurtured preference is obstructed by outside (usually societal) forces.

[Dawsonite]

Not addressed to me but that never stopped me before.

No problem. I'm quite content to argue with anyone who can be intelligent and civil.

I would say that coercion is when your natural drive or nurtured preference is obstructed by outside (usually societal) forces.

So I'm an old, lazy, retired guy. If I have to get up from my comfy chair where I tap out stupidities on the Atheist Forums to cook dinner, is coercion involved?

[FatAndFaithless]

Not addressed to me but that never stopped me before.

No problem. I'm quite content to argue with anyone who can be intelligent and civil.

I would say that coercion is when your natural drive or nurtured preference is obstructed by outside (usually societal) forces.

So I'm an old, lazy, retired guy. If I have to get up from my comfy chair where I tap out stupidities on the Atheist Forums to cook dinner, is coercion involved?

Not a great example... obviously there's a difference between outside societal forces and and you deciding to get up and type.

[Dawsonite]

Not a great example... obviously there's a difference between outside societal forces and and you deciding to get up and type.

So your definition of coercion requires some outside societal force? I think we could get into an infinite regression of definitional problems here.

[FatAndFaithless]

Not a great example... obviously there's a difference between outside societal forces and and you deciding to get up and type.

So your definition of coercion requires some outside societal force? I think we could get into an infinite regression of definitional problems here.

Well, I was simply noting that Whateverist's definition (which I mostly agree with) really has nothing to do with the example you gave.

[Dawsonite]

Well, I was simply noting that Whateverist's definition (which I mostly agree with) really has nothing to do with the example you gave.

Yes, well that was my point.

[Mudhammam]

James believed in free will, or as he calls it "novelty." What he calls a quagmire of evasion is my position, that "free will" (a refined definition of it) and determinism can be reconciled.

Do you see this as a semantic reconciliation? I don't see how you can use normal definitions of determinism and free will and have them work together. If you say something like, "Free will is the experience one has of one's brain's decision-making process," I wouldn't be able to work with that definition.

I'm not sure what else you could mean by free will that isn't spontaneous and almost willy-nilly. As I see it, an act or even a will must be an event or object that is a link in the chain of causes or a new chain itself. If a new chain, how is that created or initiated "freely?" That doesn't seem to be the freedom free-willists want either.

[orangebox21]

---

One of the most commonly used arguments for establishing the existence of God, as many of you know, states:

1. Anything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The Universe had a beginning.
3. The Universe had a cause.

A glaring peculiarity stands out, however, when philosophers such as William Lane Craig peddle this line of reasoning in one breath and yet affirm the existence of indeterminate free will in another.

Are human actions free or determined? Many will reply 'free,' which is to basically proclaim that some events do indeed have a beginning and lack a cause. Well then, on what leg does the Cosmological argument stand? Which is it?

Does anyone else find an inconsistency here or am I missing something?

Is this the point in which the soul is injected as the Unmoved Mover? Does this still not require indeterminate, spontaneous generation of action, and if not, what causal relation does "soul" have to said action?

If we simply say, "It's a mystery," then what good is intellectualism? The furthest it can possibly attain amounts to far greater fuzziness than that of perceptual reality which it so fervently claims to disdain?

---