Free agent is not contingent

[STT]

My body, myconsciousness with which I am reading and writing posts here, are instruments that are used by my soul intelligently to know and to be known by all that is not me.

My consciousness is a “watcher” of all that is and is not (within my awareness), of what my material being is doing and not doing, and awareness of what my will intends - this awareness is the painter of a phantasm providing an intelligible “image” to my soul.

All consciousness is an awareness after-the-fact of the temporal stream of instantaneous “now’s” that cannot be materially perceived individually; it is an immediate historical translation of sensible movement into intelligible scenes. Only the soul is able with agency to instantaneously animate each sequential “now” into an intelligent and intentional stream.

Your consciousness is not a watcher but your soul otherwise you couldn’t decide freely. Do you believe that you have free will?

 

[John_Martin]

Do you believe that you have free will?

I and all peoples of the world both believe and assert that I and you have free will, which is why we would be punished were we to commit a crime.
Just because you have not come to know something does not mean it is not true or real.
Time’s up.

 

[STT]

I and all peoples of the world both believe and assert that I and you have free will, which is why we would be punished were we to commit a crime.
Just because you have not come to know something does not mean it is not true or real.
Time’s up.

So which part of your soul freely decide?

 

[Gorgias]

Like car. Does your soul have parts like a car which only function when they are properly working together or it is an irreducible entity?

OK… so, what you’re really talking about are composite entities. Your assertion, then, is:

• Knowledge is composite
• Therefore, any created thing is composite
• a soul is not composite
• therefore a soul cannot be created

This is patently false. It is not the case that God can only create composites. (However, there is something true that you can say here, and maybe this is where you’re getting confused: physical entities are composite. However, I don’t think you’re trying to ‘prove’ that physical entities cannot be created (since each of us is the counter-example that destroys that argument!) )

Nevertheless: it is not the case that God is able to create only composite entities. Therefore, your argument fails.

It follows if different parts make decision. Just look at societies.

“Society” doesn’t make decisions. Individuals within societies do. So… individuals might hold conflicting ideas, which lead to a particular type of decision-making process in which conflicts are resolved. This doesn’t mean, however, that a soul is unable to reach decisions. (Properly speaking, that an intellect is unable to do so.)

It follows if the decision cannot be made because of conflict.

This, as well, doesn’t support your claim that “souls are not free.”

Necessary is obviously different from non-contingent being.

Actually, they’re opposites. So, if contingent, then not necessary; if necessary, then not contingent.

So which part of your soul freely decide?

Souls don’t have ‘parts’, per se. But, I think you’re talking about the intellect, here.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

I think you have to start with contingency and dependency.

A: Free agent cannot be created

1. Creation requires knowledge
2. Knowledge is structured
3. Therefore, any created thing is structured
4. Free-agent does not have any structure
5. Therefore, free-agent cannot be created

An absolutely free agent, cannot be created. Because to be created requires a dependency on a creator. That dependency is a limit to freedom. Creation requires a design. The design must have its origin in the designer. An absolutely free agent cannot not be limited by what a designer developed.

B: Free-agent cannot be distroyed

If the potential for a free agent to be destroyed existed, then this would limit the possibilities of freedom for the free agent. So, an absolutely free agent cannot have the risk that it could be destroyed somehow, or else it would not have absolute freedom.

C: Free agent is not contingent

This follows from A and B.

An absolutely free agent is not contingent because contingency is a limitation of freedom.

 

[rossum]

A: Free agent cannot be created

1. Creation requires knowledge
2. Knowledge is structured
3. Therefore, any created thing is structured

Your 3 is incorrect. If creation requires knowledge, then it is a creator that is structured, not the creation. There is no requirement for the created entity to have knowledge: a created pebble does not have knowledge and hence does not have structure. The creator of the pebble has the knowledge and hence the structure.

As a general point, a creator is contingent, contrary to your title. If there is no pebble then there is no creator-of-the-pebble. Being a creator of something requires that the something created exists. Hence being a creator is contingent on something created existing. You cannot be a creator of a pebble unless that pebble exists. The two are mutually contingent.

Hence any creator must be contingent.

 

[STT]

OK… so, what you’re really talking about are composite entities. Your assertion, then, is:

• Knowledge is composite
• Therefore, any created thing is composite
• a soul is not composite
• therefore a soul cannot be created

This is patently false. It is not the case that God can only create composites. (However, there is something true that you can say here, and maybe this is where you’re getting confused: physical entities are composite. However, I don’t think you’re trying to ‘prove’ that physical entities cannot be created (since each of us is the counter-example that destroys that argument!) )

Nevertheless: it is not the case that God is able to create only composite entities. Therefore, your argument fails.

I am not talking about physical entities since they are obviously are not free. I am talking about free agent.

“Society” doesn’t make decisions. Individuals within societies do. So… individuals might hold conflicting ideas, which lead to a particular type of decision-making process in which conflicts are resolved. This doesn’t mean, however, that a soul is unable to reach decisions. (Properly speaking, that an intellect is unable to do so.)

Society is an entity with parts. I was arguing that a composite entity cannot decide. Society was an example for composite entity.

This, as well, doesn’t support your claim that “souls are not free.”

I am talking about free agent. One soul for example.

Actually, they’re opposites. So, if contingent, then not necessary; if necessary, then not contingent.

Non of these simply follows. Do you have an argument for each assertion?

Souls don’t have ‘parts’, per se. But, I think you’re talking about the intellect, here.

Intellect is not a part of soul. Intellect is a device in hand of soul. It is not an entity separated from soul.

 

[STT]

I think you have to start with contingency and dependency.

Well. That is another approach. The existence of a free agent cannot depend on something else. Or free agent cannot be sustained since its very existence cannot depend on something else. In another word, freedom is rooted in existence.

An absolutely free agent, cannot be created. Because to be created requires a dependency on a creator. That dependency is a limit to freedom. Creation requires a design. The design must have its origin in the designer. An absolutely free agent cannot not be limited by what a designer developed.

What do you mean with the bold part?

If the potential for a free agent to be destroyed existed, then this would limit the possibilities of freedom for the free agent. So, an absolutely free agent cannot have the risk that it could be destroyed somehow, or else it would not have absolute freedom.

Why the bold part is true?

An absolutely free agent is not contingent because contingency is a limitation of freedom.

I have to stress that I am not talking about freedom of will, that means that you can do anything, rather free will, that means that you are not constraint with the options when you decide.

 

[STT]

Your 3 is incorrect. If creation requires knowledge, then it is a creator that is structured, not the creation.

No. It means that the content of its mind and not mind itself is structured.

 

[quaestio45]

Gorgias:

Actually, they’re opposites. So, if contingent, then not necessary; if necessary, then not contingent.

Non of these simply follows. Do you have an argument for each assertion?

Well, to be necessary in your being is to be absolute in your whole existence (because otherwise, you would have an aspect of yourself that could be different, and thus unnecessary); if you were contingent and thus your existence depended on others, then your existence cannot possibly be absolute, therefore, you cannot be necessary. Only what is noncontingent, and thus unchanging and complete in its existence, can be necessary.

 

[STT]

Well, to be necessary in your being is to be absolute in your whole existence;

What do you mean with the absolute?

 

[quaestio45]

What do you mean with the absolute?

As in, what is necessary must be (water is necessary to human life, therefore we must have it and cannot be without it), and what is unnecessary can be without or different (a PlayStation 5 is unnecessary to human life, therefore it can be something that may be tampered with or removed entirely). If a being is necessary in its existence, its whole state of existence must be in permanent for all of eternity, otherwise, if it could be changed in some way, its components, and the being itself, would be unnecessary.

 

[Gorgias]

I am not talking about physical entities since they are obviously are not free. I am talking about free agent.

I think it was @quaestio45 who pointed out that the only perfectly ‘free’ being is a necessary being.

Hence any creator must be contingent.

Not so. A description of him as ‘creator’ is contingent on the existence of the creation, but not on the creator as such.

Non of these simply follows. Do you have an argument for each assertion?

It’s the literal definition of the terms.

Intellect is not a part of soul. Intellect … is not an entity separated from soul.

You realize that those two statements are mutually exclusive, right…?

 

[STT]

As in, what is necessary must be (water is necessary to human life, therefore we must have it and cannot be without it), and what is unnecessary can be without or different (a PlayStation 5 is unnecessary to human life, therefore it can be something that may be tampered with or removed entirely). If a being is necessary in its existence, its whole state of existence must be in permanent for all of eternity, otherwise, if it could be changed in some way, its components, and the being itself, would be unnecessary.

Are you trying to say that God is necessary for existence of creation. Yes, I agree, if there is a God though. God by definition is the creator.

 

[quaestio45]

Are you trying to say that God is necessary for existence of creation. Yes, I agree, if there is a God though. God by definition is the creator.

In my previous statement? No; I was simply pointing out that a “necessary being” cannot be a contingent being and must only and always be a noncontingent one.

 

[STT]

I think it was @quaestio45 who pointed out that the only perfectly ‘free’ being is a necessary being.

What he is saying by now is that God is the creator of the universe therefore He is necessary for the creation.

It’s the literal definition of the terms.

It is not.

You realize that those two statements are mutually exclusive, right…?

I should say thing rather than entity in the second statement.

 

[STT]

In my previous statement? No; I was simply pointing out that a “necessary being” cannot be a contingent being and must only and always be a noncontingent one.

What do you mean with necessary? Water is necessary for human yet it is contingent.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

It’s the literal definition of the terms.

It is not.

OK, then: how do you define ‘necessary’ and ‘contingent’, in a philosophical context?

 

[STT]

OK, then: how do you define ‘necessary’ and ‘contingent’, in a philosophical context?

Contingent: Its existence is due to others.
Necessary: It is required.

 

[rossum]

No. It means that the content of its mind and not mind itself is structured.

The content of the Architect’s mind is structured. How do you get from that to the content of the building’s mind being structured? A building does not have a mind, yet a building can be created.

Can God create stars? Do stars have minds?

Can an omnipotent creator create an unstructured part of creation? Of course it can, it is omnipotent.

You need to think through your argument more carefully.