Dilemma first cause and free will

[Bahman]

Definitions:

For any chain of causality there exist a first cause that it sits in starting, the rest of chain are second cause and the last one being last cause.

Free will is the ability to make conscious decision when option is known.

Argument:

Conflict of interest: This argument deals the fact that beings with free will have always freedom to choose one option and act accordingly. This means that first cause has to always align itself with the second cause otherwise free will is impossible in the end of the chain when a choice is made hence the first cause cannot be free, otherwise the second cause cannot be free. In simple word, not both first agent and second agent could be free at the same time since there is a conflict of interest between them.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Definitions:

For any chain of causality there exist a first cause that it sits in starting, the rest of chain are second cause and the last one being last cause.

Free will is the ability to make conscious decision when option is known.

Argument:

Conflict of interest: This argument deals the fact that beings with free will have always freedom to choose one option and act accordingly. This means that first cause has to always align itself with the second cause otherwise free will is impossible in the end of the chain when a choice is made hence the first cause cannot be free, otherwise the second cause cannot be free. In simple word, not both first agent and second agent could be free at the same time since there is a conflict of interest between them.

The first cause freely chose to create man with a free will. And with that decision he also provided the ontological " fixes " in response to man’s every free choice. So there is no conflict, no dilemma here, both the first cause and man are free and man’s feedom was by design, it was intentional and responses made from all eternity.

Linus2nd…

 

[Bahman]

The first cause freely chose to create man with a free will. And with that decision he also provided the ontological " fixes " in response to man’s every free choice. So there is no conflict, no dilemma here, both the first cause and man are free and man’s feedom was by design, it was intentional and responses made from all eternity.

Linus2nd…

What you are saying does not make any sense. I can claim that a machine has the freedom to act otherwise, but has never ever does so. Prove otherwise!

 

[ready]

Dear Linusthe2nd,

Does the following sound right? God knows beforehand all that we each will think, say, do, omit, and desire: and with His omniscience and divine wisdom He uses all that each and every one of us thinks, says, does, etc. to fulfill His holy and perfect designs. His freedom and our freedom do not conflict at all because God knows everything and designs everything accordingly.

Yours in Mary Immaculate, our Mother and Queen,
ready

 

[John_Martin]

God created us as being that could move ourselves to completion of our nature.
In other words, he created us so that our choices are not based upon a first nor on a proximate cause. Instead our choices are “reasoned” and chosen in light of the “final cause” (meaning the final end of our perfection or wholeness).

If I desire something like marriage as my Goal (to anthropomorphize the Last End), then I will choose choices that facilitate the actualizing of that goal.

Free will has no concern about previous events, and does not choose as effected by them. It chooses based on reasonable (rational) conjecture of effectiveness of the choice to get me to the church on time.

God gets us to heaven by promising it to us as the delightfully ultimate goal of our being, and gives us the virtues (habits) of Grace with his Spirit, such that we can actually carry out the choices we make to reach him.

 

[Bahman]

Dear Linusthe2nd,

Does the following sound right? God knows beforehand all that we each will think, say, do, omit, and desire: and with His omniscience and divine wisdom He uses all that each and every one of us thinks, says, does, etc. to fulfill His holy and perfect designs. His freedom and our freedom do not conflict at all because God knows everything and designs everything accordingly.

Yours in Mary Immaculate, our Mother and Queen,
ready

Yes. Even I know that. The key question is that how a being could be free if it has to align its will toward other being’s need always. That is the definition of first cause. We are free because God as first cause is not free.

 

[Bahman]

God created us as being that could move ourselves to completion of our nature.
In other words, he created us so that our choices are not based upon a first nor on a proximate cause. Instead our choices are “reasoned” and chosen in light of the “final cause” (meaning the final end of our perfection or wholeness).

If I desire something like marriage as my Goal (to anthropomorphize the Last End), then I will choose choices that facilitate the actualizing of that goal.

Free will has no concern about previous events, and does not choose as effected by them. It chooses based on reasonable (rational) conjecture of effectiveness of the choice to get me to the church on time.

God gets us to heaven by promising it to us as the delightfully ultimate goal of our being, and gives us the virtues (habits) of Grace with his Spirit, such that we can actually carry out the choices we make to reach him.

My argument is plan and simple:

1. God is first cause when it comes to creation
2. Human have free will
3. First cause has to align itself to allows us to decide and act always
4. Hence, God is not free

 

[John_Martin]

The “first cause” caused a being with a power known as free will, and the “first cause” is fully satisfied in the fact that there is a being created that has free will.

The first cause does not need to be involved as a “principle” of the choices made. As said above, the First Cause is only causative in causing a creature with the capacity to make free choices. The capacity to choose exists then, therefore the first cause is fully completed and the first cause does not need to participate in the choices as a cause of choice, nor of optional choices.

Now, the free will does not need a first cause of choices. For that it looks to the final end of the person, and chooses what will get the person to that final actuality.

The question is not, “where did it come from?” (first cause) but for free will the correct question is, “where am I going?” (final cause or final end).

And, of course, this means (using your strange logic) that God is free and our will is free.
God is free to be himself, always desirable and unchanging in our sight as we freely move (choices) in advance to join him in his presence.

 

[Bahman]

The “first cause” caused a being with a power known as free will, and the “first cause” is fully satisfied in the fact that there is a being created that has free will.

That I have slight problem with. Either free will is a part of cause or it is not. Yes, or no?

The first cause does not need to be involved as a “principle” of the choices made. As said above, the First Cause is only causative in causing a creature with the capacity to make free choices. The capacity to choose exists then, therefore the first cause is fully completed and the first cause does not need to participate in the choices as a cause of choice, nor of optional choices.

That I know. But the first cause has to always align itself with our decisions. Yes or no?

Now, the free will does not need a first cause of choices. For that it looks to the final end of the person, and chooses what will get the person to that final actuality.

Yes. First cause is not free if creation exist.

The question is not, “where did it come from?” (first cause) but for free will the correct question is, “where am I going?” (final cause or final end).

That is the problem. Where I am going?

And, of course, this means (using your strange logic) that God is free and our will is free.
God is free to be himself, always desirable and unchanging in our sight as we freely move (choices) in advance to join him in his presence.

No. The bold part is contradictory.

 

[ready]

Dear Bahman,

God freely wills, He wills whatever is to His greater glory and honor and for the common good and the salvation of souls. It is right and fitting to say that we need whatever God wills for us, and not right and fitting to say that God aligns His will to whatever we need (like you say). It is we who must align our wills and selves to God’s will; God doesn’t align His will to our needs, desires and wills. God’s Will is fixed and perfect, so abandonment to His holy and perfect Will and uniformity to His holy and perfect Will are what we should always seek and desire for ourselves. God bless you.

 

[davidv]

Dear Bahman,

God freely wills, He wills whatever is to His greater glory and honor and for the common good and the salvation of souls. It is right and fitting to say that we need whatever God wills for us, and not right and fitting to say that God aligns His will to whatever we need (like you say). It is we who must align our wills and selves to God’s will; God doesn’t align His will to our needs, desires and wills. God’s Will is fixed and perfect, so abandonment to His holy and perfect Will and uniformity to His holy and perfect Will are what we should always seek and desire for ourselves. God bless you.

And it is precisely our ability to go against God’s will in choosing not to align our will with His, that demonstrates that fallacy in the OP.

 

[Bahman]

Dear Bahman,
God freely wills, He wills whatever is to His greater glory and honor and for the common good and the salvation of souls.

God is perfect, hence doesn’t need to use his will for his glory and honer, so God is not free at least for what concern this. God however create universe and has to sustain creation to act freely meaning that has to align his will along us otherwise we couldn’t act.

Dear Bahman,
It is right and fitting to say that we need whatever God wills for us, and not right and fitting to say that God aligns His will to whatever we need (like you say).

Your logic is self-contradictory for very reason I mentioned. Please read previous comment.

Dear Bahman,
It is we who must align our wills and selves to God’s will; God doesn’t align His will to our needs, desires and wills. God’s Will is fixed and perfect, so abandonment to His holy and perfect Will and uniformity to His holy and perfect Will are what we should always seek and desire for ourselves. God bless you.

Yes, that I agree. God’s will is fixed.

 

[John_Martin]

That I have slight problem with. Either free will is a part of cause or it is not. Yes, or no?

That I know. But the first cause has to always align itself with our decisions. Yes or no?

Yes. First cause is not free if creation exist.

That is the problem. Where I am going?

No. The bold part is contradictory.

Free will is a “power” of a rational creature. The ability to pick its own route to a destination, if it knows the destination. The power to choose is the creation of God. But the use of freedom by you or me is not caused by the first cause. Instead, when we use free will, we cause our own movement toward the destination.

“God is free to be himself, always desirable and unchanging” meaning God does not have to do anything to make choices happen - he simply exists in his essence. And as we look in his direction, we walk toward him, making choices that will get us on the right road to reach union with him. He is not aligning himself to anything, as you say.

Where are you going? When you go on a trip, you do not suddenly one day get pushed into a car or bus or plane, then get pushed off when your “first cause” decides where you should be. No, instead you know where you want to be, and you choose whether to walk or drive or ride a plane - that is free will; knowing where you wish to be, and choosing the roads to drive on, and then driving until you get there. No “first cause”, just a destination.

 

[Bahman]

And it is precisely our ability to go against God’s will in choosing not to align our will with His, that demonstrates that fallacy in the OP.

God cannot do good or evil because he is perfect and changeless. We however can do good or evil hence God has to be align his will along us because you believe we are not first cause. Where is my fallacy?

 

[davidv]

God cannot do good or evil because he is perfect and changeless. We however can do good or evil hence God has to be align his will along us because you believe we are not first cause. Where is my fallacy?

Attributing our evil doings to God.

 

[Bahman]

Attributing our evil doings to God.

No. All I am saying is that God cannot be free for a very simple reason: God doesn’t need to decide for himself and has to sustain us hence he has to align his will along our desires.

 

[Bahman]

Free will is a “power” of a rational creature. The ability to pick its own route to a destination, if it knows the destination. The power to choose is the creation of God. But the use of freedom by you or me is not caused by the first cause. Instead, when we use free will, we cause our own movement toward the destination.

You need to think on the bold part because it is self-contrary. God cannot create something with full design to be free!

“God is free to be himself, always desirable and unchanging” meaning God does not have to do anything to make choices happen - he simply exists in his essence. And as we look in his direction, we walk toward him, making choices that will get us on the right road to reach union with him. He is not aligning himself to anything, as you say.

You are not free when you have a fixed personality.

 

[davidv]

No. All I am saying is that God cannot be free for a very simple reason: God doesn’t need to decide for himself and has to sustain us hence he has to align his will along our desires.

And this is you logical fallacy. It is a non sequiteur. God’s free will allowed Him to freely give His creatures that ability to chose for themselves. He is still free, as we are.

 

[John_Martin]

You need to think on the bold part because it is self-contrary. God cannot create something with full design to be free!

You are not free when you have a fixed personality.

Whether God can or can’t create something with full design to be free, is not the issue; the fact is he did create us with the power of free will. So, trying to decide whether it is possible for him is a non-issue.

You may not feel free, but freedom is “self-control”, which means not controlled by others as if they were the cause and you were the effect. So, if you do not have self-control of your actions, you are not free, as you say.

 

[Bahman]

And this is you logical fallacy. It is a non sequiteur. God’s free will allowed Him to freely give His creatures that ability to chose for themselves. He is still free, as we are.

What you mean with allowed and is still. God is in state of timeless. The act existence of God and act creation of universe lies on the same point. There is no before and after for God.