Free agent is not contingent

[STT]

To prove this we have to go to three steps showing that: A) Free agent cannot be created, B) Free agent cannot be destroyed and C) Free agent is not contingent

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

B: Free-agent cannot be distroyed

Supposed the free-agent can be destroyed. By reversing time we see a process in which the free-agent is created. That is impossible. Therefore, free-agent cannot be destroyed

C: Free agent is not contingent

This follows from A and B.

 

[John_Martin]

My being is dependent, contingent, but my operation is volitional and temporally manifested by my will moving my body, as a free agent moving my obedient enslaved material body. I willed these words be manifest for your eyes to see and my fingers obediently keyed them.

 

[Gorgias]

Free-agent does not have any structure

you’re going to have to define what you mean by “free agent”, then. This premise is mistaken, but perhaps if we understood what you mean by “free agent”, we could discuss your proposal.

Therefore, free-agent cannot be destroyed

This “proof” hinges on your assertion that a free agent cannot be created. It’s not a ‘proof’, just a side-effect of your other assertion.

Free agent is not contingent

This follows from A and B.

No it doesn’t! If one cannot be created, then it’s not necessary (i.e., not "not contingent)!

 

[STT]

My being is dependent, contingent, but my operation is volitional and temporally manifested by my will moving my body, as a free agent moving my obedient enslaved material body. I willed these words be manifest for your eyes to see and my fingers obediently keyed them.

Yes, you willed. I am arguing that very essence of you, what you call it soul, does not have parts. Could we agree with this?

 

[STT]

you’re going to have to define what you mean by “free agent”, then. This premise is mistaken, but perhaps if we understood what you mean by “free agent”, we could discuss your proposal.

By free agent I mean that it could make free decision. What you call soul which decides does not have parts otherwise there would be a tension in the decision.

This “proof” hinges on your assertion that a free agent cannot be created. It’s not a ‘proof’, just a side-effect of your other assertion.

So you agree with this?

No it doesn’t! If one cannot be created, then it’s not necessary (i.e., not "not contingent)!

I said it follows from A and B not only A.

 

[John_Martin]

. I am arguing that very essence of you, what you call it soul, does not have parts. Could we agree with this?

No.
Only my LORD is simple, whereas, I am complex; I am made. So, I have being (I recognize or notice that I am). But my being is not my will nor is my being my intellect nor is my being my soul. I HAVE a soul, and my soul has powers to know and to consider and to “move to actualization” (to will).
My soul has parts - basic philosophical understanding; basic metaphysics; it is what is.

 

[STT]

My soul has parts - basic philosophical understanding; basic metaphysics; it is what is.

So a part of your soul decides to do something and another part tells your soul decides to do another thing?

 

[John_Martin]

So a part of your soul decides to do something and another part tells your soul decides to do another thing?

Nothing in a soul tells anyone to do anything, nothing decides between “alternative options”.

1. I see something and wonder “what is it?”
2. Upon knowing what is it, I wonder, “is it good to unite this to me or within me or me within it?”
3. Upon knowing union appears desirable, no decisions happen - activity of movement toward union AUTOMATICALLY begins - that is “will”, the power driving all parts of myself toward union with that desirable object, simply because it is “good to unite with”.
   Understanding “good to have”, desirability", is a judgement in freedom, even though my nature will only desire compatible things. Will is the power to make union happen, but will is not decision - will is fully decided to seek the judgement of “good to have”.

 

[STT]

Nothing in a soul tells anyone to do anything, nothing decides between “alternative options”.

1. I see something and wonder “what is it?”
2. Upon knowing what is it, I wonder, “is it good to unite this to me or within me or me within it?”
3. Upon knowing union appears desirable, no decisions happen - activity of movement toward union AUTOMATICALLY begins - that is “will”, the power driving all parts of myself toward union with that desirable object, simply because it is “good to unite with”.
   Understanding “good to have”, desirability", is a judgement in freedom, even though my nature will only desire compatible things. Will is the power to make union happen, but will is not decision - will is fully decided to seek the judgement of “good to have”.

How many of you find a thing desirable, etc.?

 

[Gorgias]

By free agent I mean that it could make free decision. What you call soul

This kinda hurts your argument, then. How can you assert that a soul “has no structure”? That neither follows nor makes any sense.

So you agree with this?

No. I’m just pointing out that it’s not a “proof”, but would follow from your other argument (if that argument were logical… which it’s not).

Gorgias:

If one cannot be created, then it’s not necessary (i.e., not "not contingent)!

I said it follows from A and B not only A.

Non sequitur. The definition of ‘necessity’ is “it must exist”. If a “free-agent” cannot be created, therefore – by definition! – it cannot be “necessary”! It literally must be contingent!

My soul has parts - basic philosophical understanding

Actually… no. Your soul is spiritual. Therefore, it is not composite.

 

[quaestio45]

If a “free-agent” cannot be created, therefore – by definition! – it cannot be “necessary”! It literally must be contingent!

Gorgias, that doesn’t seem right to me. For, God is not an entity that may be created, yet that does not deny his necessity, does it? And if it does not deny his necessity, then its still very much possible it could be noncontingent, wouldn’t you say? And if we were calling things necessary on the basis that it can be created, then not only am I necessary being, but my not yet existent son is too.

Ultimately, I suppose it depends on what you mean by necessary and contingent though.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias, that doesn’t seem right to me. For, God is not an entity that may be created, yet that does not deny his necessity, does it?

I’m presuming that he’s talking about a creature, not God.

And if we were calling things necessary on the basis that it can be created, then not only am I necessary being, but my not yet existent son is too.

No, that’s not the point. If something must exist, then it’s necessary. If it merely may exist, then it’s contingent. If it’s created by another being – then it’s contingent. We would call God ‘necessary’, and that’s about it. (And yes, I’m including the entire Trinity in that category. )

 

[quaestio45]

Ohhh, I see. Well my mistakes, I must have misread

 

[John_Martin]

Actually… no. Your soul is spiritual. Therefore, it is not composite.

Actually… no: I believe I said my soul is “complex” (not composite), and that only God is Simple.
“Parts” may have been an unfortunate turn of phrase to shock the @STT but should not have shook anyone who is aware of his own soul.

My intellect is not my will, nor do they do each other’s activities.

 

[STT]

This kinda hurts your argument, then. How can you assert that a soul “has no structure”? That neither follows nor makes any sense.

It doesn’t hurt. If the soul has structure then there are parts who are involved in the decision. That leads to conflict in decisions. Therefore the soul is not free.

Moreover, I haven’t seen a part of me decides to do something and another part decides to do something else.

No. I’m just pointing out that it’s not a “proof”, but would follow from your other argument (if that argument were logical… which it’s not).

So, let’s wait for another part.

Non sequitur. The definition of ‘necessity’ is “it must exist”. If a “free-agent” cannot be created, therefore – by definition! – it cannot be “necessary”! It literally must be contingent!

I am not talking necessary being.

 

[John_Martin]

Moreover, I haven’t seen a part of me decides to do something and another part decides to do something else.

No one is aware of any occurrences in their soul; you will never see your intellect nor will nor deciding of your will; you will only find yourself suddenly saying, “I will have the vanilla ice cream, please,” and then you will realize, “Oh, my soul hidden has moved my thoughts and moved my mouth to make known the hiddenness of my will so that I and the waiter know what is desired.”
No decision or decidedness ever comes to be consciously; it is only after-the-fact made materially present in the brain’s thoughts by the moving of the body to express the will’s intent which is never directly knowable.

 

[STT]

No one is aware of any occurrences in their soul; you will never see your intellect nor will nor deciding of your will; you will only find yourself suddenly saying, “I will have the vanilla ice cream, please,” and then you will realize, “Oh, my soul hidden has moved my thoughts and moved my mouth to make known the hiddenness of my will so that I and the waiter know what is desired.”
No decision or decidedness ever comes to be consciously; it is only after-the-fact made materially present in the brain’s thoughts by the moving of the body to express the will’s intent which is never directly knowable.

So you don’t consciously decide? Is the part of your soul which decides is conscious or unconscious?

 

[John_Martin]

So you don’t consciously decide? Is the part of your soul which decides is conscious or unconscious?

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.

 

[Gorgias]

If the soul has structure then there are parts who are involved in the decision.

OK. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean by “structure”, then. Would you mind explaining what you mean by your use of this term? Perhaps, with examples?

That leads to conflict in decisions.

That doesn’t follow.

Therefore the soul is not free.

And, that doesn’t follow, either.

I am not talking necessary being.

You’re talking about “non-contingent”… which is “necessary”. QED.

 

[STT]

OK. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean by “structure”, then. Would you mind explaining what you mean by your use of this term? Perhaps, with examples?

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?

That doesn’t follow.

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

And, that doesn’t follow, either.

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

You’re talking about “non-contingent”… which is “necessary”. QED.

Necessary is obviously different from non-contingent being. A non-contingent being could be God, if there is any, since our souls are due to existence of Him. I as a mind that is not contingent can simply exist or exist not.