There really is no debate. Your definition of free will either entails determinism or indeterminism. There are no other options. The problem is that most Christians falsely believe that invoking free will solves the problems of evil and hell. It doesn’t.
I was just wondering if there was an official Catholic teaching on what exactly it is. Like if it’s a compatibilist free will or a libertarian free will.
I think there is a serious problem with this statement, because determinism means determined by previous events and indeterminism means not determined by anything at all. (At least, that’s my understanding of the two terms.) Don’t you see how both of those leave out the possibility that the will determines its own actions rather than prior events? Do you think it’s reasonable to exclude that alternative possibility?
Why do you keep bringing this question up? You can find the answer in the Catechism, Part 3 ( Live in Christ ), Section 1, Article 1 ( Man: The Image of God ), Article 3 ( Man’s Freedom. ).
Self-determinism is either compatible with determinism or it is not. If it is not, then it must entail indeterminism. There are no other options.
There is a third option because determinism and indeterminism are not defined as opposites of one another. Determinism means determined by prior events, while indeterminism means undetermined. The false dichotomy is in the assumption that prior things are the only things that can determine something. A possibility remains where a cause is free to produce either of two effects independently of prior events.
Your present mental state was caused by your previous mental state. If you argue otherwise, then your present mental state just randomly emerged. To reiterate: there are only two options here - determinism or indeterminism.
Your argument is self-refuting! It implies you are not responsible for your conclusion - which is therefore unreliable…
Why do you continue to insist on putting labels on man’s free will? What is prompting you to do this? What have you been reading or listening to or watching? The Catholic understanding is not determined by anyone but the Magisterium of the Church.and Divine Revelation.
Free will has two words the first one is very difficult to understand in determinism framework where as the second one not. The will is the tendency toward performing an action. In another there are potentialities in occurrence of events that they are represented as option in conscious mind of an agent. How this is done is subject of discussion as no one has a clear understanding of consciousness. There is a problem here since there could be a conflict between consciousness and will/determinism since potentiality determines only one action hence having two options is meaningless. In another word it just appears in the mind that there are two options but in reality there is one and another is an illusion. The problem of freedom appears when we are dealing with a situation that two actions are potentially equivalent. This of course disturbs deterministic picture since one and only one action is possible so the question is how the whole picture then evolve. Consciousness plays no role here as we know that it could be fooled, as it was discussed. There is no way that consciousness could evaluate the exact state of subject matter to conclude that two options which are presented are fully equivalent unless one claim that this is exactly what consciousness does when it comes to an ambiguous situation where a decision is needed. A decision is random in the first case where as in the second case it is free. Consciousness of course cannot play any role in the second case when it come to decision since that requires preference, once the preference is in the place then that distort the equivalence hence the decision is not free because two potential options are not fully equivalent anymore. So the question is what plays the dominant role in such a situation if it is not consciousness. This people calls it intellect/subconsciousness which we cannot have any access to it through our consciousness. Our consciousness is only become aware of decision when decision is made. In another word we cannot make conscious decision which is free. Period.
I think it is illogical to assert that only prior events can cause things because I think i can price that it is based on a false dichotomy. Let me show you:
Given the same situation and circumstances, could your “self-determined” choice have been otherwise? If you argue that it could have been otherwise, then you have to explain exactly how it could have been otherwise without invoking some indeterminate event. Until you put forth some plausible explanation how exactly this would work, you have no argument.
Yes.
My proposition is that the will is a cause that is free to produce any of a number of possible effects independently of any prior events. Because there is nothing logically contradictory in this definition of free will, it is a logical possibility. In order to deny its possibility, you would need to show some internal contradiction. Invoking the standard argument against free will doesn’t work because I have already shown that that argument is based on a false dilemma. Therefore, self-determinism as defined above is a real logical possibility. Does that seem like a fair argument to you?
Your argument is based on the unsubstantiated and unverifiable assumption that all mental activity is derived from physical events. Until you put forth some plausible explanation how exactly this works, you have no argument…
Yes, that’s your proposition. But you haven’t furnished us with any explanation how exactly the agent, given the same situation and circumstances, could have chosen otherwise without invoking some indeterminate event.
First of all no one has ever been able to detect " gravity, " science has never been able to measure it. And susceptibility to measurement is the marker to physical reality. All things in the universe, aside from the human soul, are material or physical in some manner, even waves and magnitism. All we can do is measure the effects of gravity. That means that gravity may be nothing less than the actual power of God, which of course could no more be measureable than man’s soul.