If we truly have free will, our choices are uncaused causes

[N0X3x]

This would seem to refute the arguments that an uncaused cause must have the properties of God.

Or, alternatively, it could mean our wills have some of the same properties as God, for example, our wills could be immutable, and eternally devoted to either good or evil.

Yet it does raise some questions, particularly for those who cite arguments like the kalaam, whose first premise is that things that begin to exist have a cause. Our choices may be uncaused, but the will, which is the basis for our choice, began to exist, and, as brute fact, is oriented either toward good or toward evil. You could imagine our wills as existing in a state of either 0 (pursuing evil) or 1 (pursuing goodness) but nothing at all caused them to be in that state! Yet the state began to exist!

What say ye?

 

[ynotzap]

The will of man is one of the powers of the soul called volition ( the power of choice) the object of appetency of the will is the good. Just as the object of appetency of the intellect is the truth or the true. The will pursues the good which is presented to it by the intellect, when the will makes a choice it is caused by what the intellect presents to it as the good. If the intellect is not informed by what is the truth, then this hinders the will from acquiring the the real good. Evil is regarded as the absence of the good, and the true. So by our experience, our choices are not uncaused causes, but caused by what we perceive as good.
We are like God in that we have free will, to make choices even to go against God’s will. God does what He wills, and so do we.

 

[N0X3x]

For a response to this, see the thread I just posted on the philosophy forum about “corruptism.”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

For a response to this, see the thread I just posted on the philosophy forum about “corruptism.”

Did that. Ynoizap has given you a good answer. There is no conflict. And your human nature ( a person composed of body and soul ) is not a " brute fact. " Where did you human nature come from? Ultimately it was caused by the Uncaused Cause, God.

See the Summa Theologiae, part 1, ques 2 - 49 and 75-119. newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Peter_Plato]

This would seem to refute the arguments that an uncaused cause must have the properties of God.

Or, alternatively, it could mean our wills have some of the same properties as God, for example, our wills could be immutable, and eternally devoted to either good or evil.

Yet it does raise some questions, particularly for those who cite arguments like the kalaam, whose first premise is that things that begin to exist have a cause. Our choices may be uncaused, but the will, which is the basis for our choice, began to exist, and, as brute fact, is oriented either toward good or toward evil. You could imagine our wills as existing in a state of either 0 (pursuing evil) or 1 (pursuing goodness) but nothing at all caused them to be in that state! Yet the state began to exist!

What say ye?

Perhaps God underwrites free will in the sense of enabling human free will. In other words, the grace of God empowers freedom of will provided we exercise that option enabled by grace. The less we choose for the good, the less free we become, but the grace available from God may be dynamic in the sense that the “amount” or strength required to overcome our degeneracy is increased to meet the deficit we create by choosing evil. This would mean that our choices between good and evil are always held in balance so that we could, given grace, always have the power (underwritten by God) to enable the choice for good even if we have become entrenched in evil.

At some point, a final option or “last call” in an ontological sense of reprobation would seal things as a matter of course. At the same time, where grace from God finally releases the will from the possibility of resisting grace - the ultimate freedom of God would make union with God’s will the immutable ground for our freedom.

I wouldn’t confuse independence with freedom of will. The only ultimately FREE will is God’s. Our will vacillates between freedom underwritten by God and slavery to sin. The kind of tentative or pseudo freedom of being in a position to choose between good and evil is not real freedom but, rather, the capacity to refuse to be free by delimiting real freedom, i.e., acting contrary to the will of God.

 

[ChainBreaker]

This would seem to refute the arguments that an uncaused cause must have the properties of God.

Or, alternatively, it could mean our wills have some of the same properties as God, for example, our wills could be immutable, and eternally devoted to either good or evil.

Yet it does raise some questions, particularly for those who cite arguments like the kalaam, whose first premise is that things that begin to exist have a cause. Our choices may be uncaused, but the will, which is the basis for our choice, began to exist, and, as brute fact, is oriented either toward good or toward evil. You could imagine our wills as existing in a state of either 0 (pursuing evil) or 1 (pursuing goodness) but nothing at all caused them to be in that state! Yet the state began to exist!

What say ye?

There are different kind of causes. God is an existential cause, but God being so also allows for secondary causation in the sense that while God does cause the existence of all acts God nevertheless creates “natures” that act according to their natures. God causes things to be according to their nature.

 

[Tomdstone]

The will of man is one of the powers of the soul called volition ( the power of choice) the object of appetency of the will is the good. Just as the object of appetency of the intellect is the truth or the true. The will pursues the good which is presented to it by the intellect, when the will makes a choice it is caused by what the intellect presents to it as the good. If the intellect is not informed by what is the truth, then this hinders the will from acquiring the the real good. Evil is regarded as the absence of the good, and the true. So by our experience, our choices are not uncaused causes, but caused by what we perceive as good.
We are like God in that we have free will, to make choices even to go against God’s will. God does what He wills, and so do we.

If the will is forced to always choose only the highest good, then how can it be free? If that were true, what you choose is predetermined and therefore your will is not free.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If the will is forced to always choose only the highest good, then how can it be free? If that were true, what you choose is predetermined and therefore your will is not free.

Ah, yes, but the will isn’t currently forced to “always choose the highest good,” which is precisely why sin and evil are possible. On the other hand, if the highest good is identical to true freedom as in the kind of unconstrained freedom possible only to omnipotence, then ultimate freedom (God’s omnipotent will) is identical to the highest good (God’s omnibenevolent will.)

 

[ChainBreaker]

If the will is forced to always choose only the highest good, then how can it be free? If that were true, what you choose is predetermined and therefore your will is not free.

Being locked in a room with only having the possibility of pushing a red button has no bearing on whether or not you are free to act. We were created to serve the love of God, and yet we can choose to serve our own good contrary to God’s will.

We have freewill.

 

[ChainBreaker]

If the will is forced to always choose only the highest good, then how can it be free? If that were true, what you choose is predetermined and therefore your will is not free.

Being locked in a room with only having the possibility of pushing a red button has no bearing on whether or not you are free to act. We were created to serve the love of God, and yet we can choose to serve our own self-involved good contrary to God’s will.

We can worship ourselves as opposed to God. We have freewill.

 

[Tomdstone]

Ah, yes, but the will isn’t currently forced to “always choose the highest good,” which is precisely why sin and evil are possible. On the other hand, if the highest good is identical to true freedom as in the kind of unconstrained freedom possible only to omnipotence, then ultimate freedom (God’s omnipotent will) is identical to the highest good (God’s omnibenevolent will.)

Then why are people around here saying that you only choose what appears to be good.

 

[Tomdstone]

Being locked in a room with only having the possibility of pushing a red button has no bearing on whether or not you are free to act. We were created to serve the love of God, and yet we can choose to serve our own self-involved good contrary to God’s will.

We can worship ourselves as opposed to God. We have freewill.

Do we only choose what appears to be good to us or not?

 

[ChainBreaker]

Do we only choose what appears to be good to us or not?

We choose what we think is good. But we do not always choose what is morally good.

 

[Tomdstone]

We choose what we think is good. But we do not always choose what is morally good.

So we only choose what appears to us as good? We cannot choose what appears to us as bad?

 

[blase6]

That we only choose what appears to us to be good is the biggest problem I have with free will. It seems like this is the only way we act.

From my personal reflection and observation of others, people always “choose” how to act in the way that appears best to them. So sin and unwise behavior are explained by personal disposition. It doesn’t feel like freedom.

 

[Tomdstone]

That we only choose what appears to us to be good is the biggest problem I have with free will. It seems like this is the only way we act.

From my personal reflection and observation of others, people always “choose” how to act in the way that appears best to them. So sin and unwise behavior are explained by personal disposition. It doesn’t feel like freedom.

Since we are required to choose only what appears to us as good, and we cannot choose what appears to us as bad, then I don;t see how we can have free will.

 

[ChainBreaker]

So we only choose what appears to us as good? We cannot choose what appears to us as bad?

We can choose a lesser good in opposition to God.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Since we are required to choose only what appears to us as good, and we cannot choose what appears to us as bad, then I don;t see how we can have free will.

We know too much sugar is bad for us. But for some of us the taste of sugar is good in the respect that it produces a pleasurable experience and that is Good. Sugar in and of itself is not an evil object.

Which will you choose? It depends on what you value I suppose.

 

[N0X3x]

Did that. Ynoizap has given you a good answer. There is no conflict. And your human nature ( a person composed of body and soul ) is not a " brute fact. " Where did you human nature come from? Ultimately it was caused by the Uncaused Cause, God.

My Nature might have come from God, but my will is entirely my own. If my will were derived from my nature, and my nature created by God, then God is indirectly responsible for all the decisions I make. In order for my will to truly be free, there must be no causal link between God and the orientation of my will.

 

[tonyrey]

Since we are required to choose only what appears to us as good, and we cannot choose what appears to us as bad, then I don;t see how we can have free will.

In many situations no choice is **entirely **good or bad. Then we have to choose the lesser evil and, of course, we make mistakes…

In addition, what we are required to choose and what we choose are not always identical. We are responsible for our mistakes because we usually know whether our choice is good or evil.

To complicate matters, what we regard as “bad” is not necessarily evil!