Any free agent is an uncaused cause

[STT]

The very act of decision is an uncaused cause since otherwise your decision is affected by something else which means it is caused. Therefore any free agent is an uncaused cause.

 

[Aquinas11]

But your decision is affected by something else which caused you to have options A, B, C, D to choose from

Not to mention your decision was also caused (in part) by prior experiences, influences etc

 

[STT]

But your decision is affected by something else which caused you to have options A, B, C, D to choose from.

Of course you need options to make a decision but that doesn’t mean that your free decision is affected by options. That is very definition of freedom.

Not to mention your decision was also caused (in part) by prior experiences, influences etc.

In that case your decision is not free.

 

[Aquinas11]

Of course you need options to make a decision but that doesn’t mean that your free decision is affected by options.

Of course it’s affected. If only have options A-D, your free choice can only result in one of them. Can’t pick E.

 

[STT]

Of course it’s affected. If only have options A-D, your free choice can only result in one of them. Can’t pick E.

Freedom in decision does not mean that there shouldn’t be any option.

 

[Aquinas11]

You have option but the BREADTH of options is affected by prior causes

 

[STT]

You have option but the BREADTH of options is affected by prior causes

Yes. But the existence of option doesn’t take your freedom in decision. I am arguing that you are uncasued cause because you are free. Even God had options to create or not.

 

[Usagi]

Your decisions may be uncaused in the sense of not being wholly determined by past events, but you are not an uncaused cause. Your existence is contingent on many past events.

Plus, in Catholic thinking, God is the first cause of everything. He gives you the freedom to make your own decisions, but your very ability to decide and act comes from Him.

 

[STT]

Your decisions may be uncaused in the sense of not being wholly determined by past events, but you are not an uncaused cause. Your existence is contingent on many past events.

You/mind is uncaused cause because you are free (I have an argument for that). Your body is caused.

1. The causation requires knowledge
2. Knowledge is structured
3. Therefore any caused thing is structured
4. Anything which is structured cannot be free
5. Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

Plus, in Catholic thinking, God is the first cause of everything. He gives you the freedom to make your own decisions, but your very ability to decide and act comes from Him.

So you believe that a caused thing, human, can be source of an uncaused cause, decision? To me that is impossible that human to be the source of uncaused cause since the very existence of him/her depends on something else. But let’s see what is your objection to previous argument.

 

[Wozza]

Aquinas11:

Of course it’s affected. If only have options A-D, your free choice can only result in one of them. Can’t pick E.

Freedom in decision does not mean that there shouldn’t be any option.

If you make a decision then it can be asked why you did so. The reason will be the cause. ‘I chose A because…’. The very word ‘be-cause’ means just that. The clue is in the name.

Else you made a random choice for no reason. Which is hardly the definition of free will.

 

[Vico]

The very act of decision is an uncaused cause since otherwise your decision is affected by something else which means it is caused. Therefore any free agent is an uncaused cause.

St. Thomas Aquinas addressed this topic.

Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 83 Free-will > Article 1. Whether man has free-will?​

Reply to Objection 3. Free-will is the cause of its own movement, because by his free-will man moves himself to act. But it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself, as neither for one thing to be cause of another need it be the first cause. God, therefore, is the first cause, Who moves causes both natural and voluntary. And just as by moving natural causes He does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature.

 

[STT]

If you make a decision then it can be asked why you did so. The reason will be the cause. ‘I chose A because…’. The very word ‘be-cause’ means just that. The clue is in the name.

The decision is not free if there is a reason for it.

Else you made a random choice for no reason. Which is hardly the definition of free will.

There is an element of wanting in it. The command. The choice just seems pure random.

 

[STT]

I didn’t say that the uncaused cause is the first cause.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

If you make a decision then it can be asked why you did so. The reason will be the cause. ‘I chose A because…’. The very word ‘be-cause’ means just that. The clue is in the name.

The decision is not free if there is a reason for it.

So on the assumption that you have made a free will choice it is your position that there was no reason for making it.

Could we perhaps have an example?

 

[STT]

I think we make free decision when the whole weight for each option is equal, whole weight being the contribution of all reasons: taste , smell, beauty, etc… You have options but you like them equally. Or you might like them for different reasons, but with same weight when it comes to the whole weight for each option.

 

[Wozza]

I think we make free decision when the whole weight for each option is equal, whole weight being the contribution of all reasons: taste , smell, beauty, etc… You have options but you like them equally. Or you might like them for different reasons, but with same weight when it comes to the whole weight for each option.

Nope. This is getting wierder.

First up you claimed that free will was when you had NO reasons for making a choice. Now you are saying that free will is when you DO have reasons but they are all equal.

So if you prefer chocolate over vanilla, then selecting chocolate is NOT a free will choice. But if you like them equally then choosing chocolate IS a free will choice.

I don’t think that you have thought this through.

 

[STT]

Nope. This is getting wierder.

First up you claimed that free will was when you had NO reasons for making a choice. Now you are saying that free will is when you DO have reasons but they are all equal.

So if you prefer chocolate over vanilla, then selecting chocolate is NOT a free will choice. But if you like them equally then choosing chocolate IS a free will choice.

I don’t think that you have thought this through.

The comparison between options is prior to making a free decision.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Nope. This is getting wierder.

First up you claimed that free will was when you had NO reasons for making a choice. Now you are saying that free will is when you DO have reasons but they are all equal.

So if you prefer chocolate over vanilla, then selecting chocolate is NOT a free will choice. But if you like them equally then choosing chocolate IS a free will choice.

I don’t think that you have thought this through.

The comparison between options is prior to making a free decision.

But you say it’s only a free decision if you can’t make a decision on what to decide.

C’mon, that’s got to win a prize of some sort.

 

[HarryStotle]

Your decisions may be uncaused in the sense of not being wholly determined by past events, but you are not an uncaused cause. Your existence is contingent on many past events.

Plus, in Catholic thinking, God is the first cause of everything. He gives you the freedom to make your own decisions, but your very ability to decide and act comes from Him.

Yes, but in Catholic thinking, there are aspects of what it means to be human that are caused, but the fact that it is God who holds each of us in existence in the present moment means that the manner in which we exist may be quite different from the manner that things in the causal order exist.

Those aspects of being human which are caused in the sense of being the necessary and sufficient condition for may be causally determined, but some aspects such as will, intellect and consciousness may be underwritten by something akin to the Imago Dei which, we might surmise, does not function causally in the same way.

I mean we wouldn’t, as Catholics, claim that God is subject to causation, so why couldn’t some aspects of our nature – those directly created and sustained moment to moment by God in whose image we are made – not be subject to the causal order.

I suspect that our identity – that which defines WHO we are, as opposed to WHAT we are – depends upon our capacity to originate novel chains of events in the observable world. I realize this needs an argument to bolster the claim, but, for now, I am just making the point.

For one thing moral responsibility or obligation would make no sense at all, since why would or could we be held morally accountable for what we are merely caused to do?

 

[Delusioned]

I think that some distinction needs to be drawn between what causes someone to act, and what motivates them to act.