I know for a fact that I am not uncaused. The material cause of me is my parents along with God. They supplied egg, sperm and soul respectively.Do you have free will? Yes. Is it influenced by internal or external factor? No. Hence you are uncaused cause. Why? You can make free conscious decision.
I like to look at the problem backward to show your fallacy. You might later realize where are you from. Are you free to make conscious decision? Yes. Does your free conscious decision could be caused by anything? No. Hence your free decision is uncaused cause.I know for a fact that I am not uncaused. The material cause of me is my parents along with God. They supplied egg, sperm and soul respectively.
Your argument is backwards. My soul, created by God, is the cause of my free will. My mind, exercising free will, is the cause of the choices I make.
Yes; the free decision is caused by the command of the intellect. I have said this a few times now.I like to look at the problem backward to show your fallacy. You might later realize where are you from. Are you free to make conscious decision? Yes. Does your free conscious decision could be caused by anything? No. Hence your free decision is uncaused cause.
I don’t believe that is the power of intellect (I believe that is consciousness or you) but anyway, what is outcome of intellect must be uncaused cause otherwise it is influenced by other things.Yes; the free decision is caused by the command of the intellect. I have said this a few times now.
We have already gone through that consciousness is not basic, and is a property of a faculty not an essential attribute. The intellects command for the will to make a choice is indeed influenced by things; it is influenced by what is presented to it by the senses. You are still presupposing a libertarian free will which is foreign to traditional Catholic philosophy and is usually argued against in the literature; do you have an argument for libertarian free will over intellectualism which is more at home in the Philosophical and Theological tradition of Catholic Church? If not, why should we adopt the cartesian emphasis on the ‘I’ of the res cogitans; rather than the relational person as found in integral humanism, which is of Thomism.I don’t believe that is the power of intellect (I believe that is consciousness or you) but anyway, what is outcome of intellect must be uncaused cause otherwise it is influenced by other things.
Since your backward look preceded my post, the only fallacy presented was your post.I like to look at the problem backward to show your fallacy. You might later realize where are you from. Are you free to make conscious decision? Yes. Does your free conscious decision could be caused by anything? No. Hence your free decision is uncaused cause.
Then why you should be responsible for your action in place of divine justice?We have already gone through that consciousness is not basic, and is a property of a faculty not an essential attribute. The intellects command for the will to make a choice is indeed influenced by things; it is influenced by what is presented to it by the senses. You are still presupposing a libertarian free will which is foreign to traditional Catholic philosophy and is usually argued against in the literature; do you have an argument for libertarian free will over intellectualism which is more at home in the Philosophical and Theological tradition of Catholic Church? If not, why should we adopt the cartesian emphasis on the ‘I’ of the res cogitans; rather than the relational person as found in integral humanism, which is of Thomism.
I cannot help you. You are trying to solve a complex problem in a linear matter and that is why you even deny your power and yourself.Since your backward look preceded my post, the only fallacy presented was your post.
Can you please show me that the dichotomy is either Libertarian Free Will or amoralism. The will still freely moves to its decision between the options presented to it by the intellect. Until such a time that you 1) Demonstrate that if we do not have libertarian free will we are not responsible for our actions, and 2) demonstrate that libertarian free will is true, over intellectualism which has a firmer grounding in natural philosophy, I do not see the merit of your objection.Then why you should be responsible for your action in place of divine justice?
Yes and no. Free will manifests itself in the moment of perfection when there is a perfect balance between inside (you) and outside (your body most importantly your brain). Unbalanced cases only leads to amoralism.Can you please show me that the dichotomy is either Libertarian Free Will or amoralism.
How it moves? It is very you who moves it and the move has to be uncaused move.The will still freely moves to its decision between the options presented to it by the intellect.
Yes and no. Intellect generally is utility of consciousness unless we could not recognize ourselves so intellect become dominant. By consciousness I mean the very essence of us which is primary, simple and irreducible. It can experience and affect mental states. Intellect in human case is the brain, so called subconsciousness. Its duty is to deliver options based on a situation when decision is needed or process things based on what we have learn and deliver the product when judgment is needed.Until such a time that you 1) Demonstrate that if we do not have libertarian free will we are not responsible for our actions, and 2) demonstrate that libertarian free will is true, over intellectualism which has a firmer grounding in natural philosophy, I do not see the merit of your objection.
Whatever the case, the Church teaches Dogmatically that God is simple. In other words there is no distinction between his essence and his powers and attributes…You can still have Divine Voluntarism (Ockham) vs Divine Intellectualism (Scotus & Aquinas). Divine Voluntarism is essentially libertarian free will applied to God; which is an absurdity as it makes the good a by product of Gods volition rather than Divine Wisdom.
If you did not have an intellect, you would have no self consciousness. Therefore consciousness must be a property of the intellect, which is a property of the soul.No, consciousness is not a property of intellect. We in fact experience by product of intellect. Hence, consciousness is primary and intellect is secondary.
No. It is body and soul, the person, then intellect and then consciousness.It is this chain in order of hierarchy, consciousness, intellect, body.
To avoid confusion here and to those viewing.Why we bother about dictionary. I can define things which properly reflect my thought.
No, if you don’t have a intellect/brain you cannot be self-aware.If you did not have an intellect, you would have no self consciousness. Therefore consciousness must be a property of the intellect, which is a property of the soul.
No, it is you/consciousness and intellect/brain. There is no need for soul. What is your definition of soul? I need a simple definition.No. It is body and soul, the person, then intellect and then consciousness.
Western people should read some eastern philosophy! They have their own God too. And they have very decent saying: Atman is Brahman. Translate it to english, the sence of Iness is God. And as Jesus correctly understood I am who I am or I am consciousness.To avoid confusion here and to those viewing.
Linus2nd
I have already explained about a 100 times why you are wrong.No, if you don’t have a intellect/brain you cannot be self-aware.
No, it is you/consciousness and intellect/brain. There is no need for soul. What is your definition of soul? I need a simple definition.
Western people should read some eastern philosophy! They have their own God too. And they have very decent saying: Atman is Brahman. Translate it to english, the sence of Iness is God. And as Jesus correctly understood I am who I am or I am consciousness.
You have never read and think throughly of any other philosophy except the Thomas! Have you?I have already explained about a 100 times why you are wrong.
Yes, Eastern cultures do have gods. But it is far from clear what they mean by their gods. And there can only be one God.
Linus2nd
Is it possible that they only meant He had no necessary physical parts? Not all of Aquinas is dogma. There is no dogma as far as I know that God the Father and the Holy Spirit don’t have accidental bodies not born of a woman, or that that essense of God is not simple energy, of a kind beyond anything in the universe. That might upset you, but as for the first claim, in bringing Mormons over we shouldn’t make them believe things they don’t have to, and as for the second, maybe you and I are saying the exact same thing. God is Love, which for humans is a feeling, vibration, or whatever you want to call it. Aquinas agreed in the Summa with Dionysius that God is more like Love than He is like anything else, but He is more unlike Love than like it because any concept of Love we have of Him is beyond imperfect to describe Him. But if we say He is no energy as all, is there a human way of understanding him without Him being a NOTHING? I think there were Fathers of the Church who said that God was Energy…Whatever the case, the Church teaches Dogmatically that God is simple. In other words there is no distinction between his essence and his powers and attributes…
Linus2nd
He makes perfect sense. So why should I clutter my mind with lesser lights?You have never read and think throughly of any other philosophy except the Thomas! Have you?
All I can say is that you are a very confused person. Your statement isn’t even worth commenting on. It is just silly.Is it possible that they only meant He had no necessary physical parts? Not all of Aquinas is dogma. There is no dogma as far as I know that God the Father and the Holy Spirit don’t have accidental bodies not born of a woman, or that that essense of God is not simple energy, of a kind beyond anything in the universe. That might upset you, but as for the first claim, in bringing Mormons over we shouldn’t make them believe things they don’t have to, and as for the second, maybe you and I are saying the exact same thing. God is Love, which for humans is a feeling, vibration, or whatever you want to call it. Aquinas agreed in the Summa with Dionysius that God is more like Love than He is like anything else, but He is more unlike Love than like it because any concept of Love we have of Him is beyond imperfect to describe Him. But if we say He is no energy as all, is there a human way of understanding him without Him being a NOTHING? I think there were Fathers of the Church who said that God was Energy…