Theli

Ofcourse... cause, like any other concept is very simplistic compared to what it describes. Just enough to give us minor understanding. There's nothing absolute that says what the actual cause is.

luvluv

I think free will decisions can be caused without being determined. That would still be free will in the classical theistic sense.

Grumpy

If that's the case, then I don't understand the distinction between "caused" and "determined." (I might not understand in any case. ) A decision is "caused" by whatever psychology/chemistry/quantum mechanics brought it about. These principles operate in mechanistic ways, so the outcome is likewise mechanistic. Is this not the definition of determinism? (Or close to it?)

I'd never heard of this paradox before, but I like it. I don't know how much it serves as an atheological argument, but it's a fun way to tie someone up in knots.

Jon Curry

I don't understand the problem, Steven. You say:

Of course they do not. They are caused by us, as Geisler says. They are caused by a person. They are not caused by themselves. What's the problem?

They are caused by a person. A thing cannot cause itself to exist. So a decision could not bring about its own existence. But a person could bring a decision into existence.

Steven Carr

So Geisler says a decision is self-caused, and then he swaps that out to mean that they are caused by ourself.

Apart from the fact that both 'self-caused' and 'ourself' contain the letters 'self' , these are two very different concepts.


Geisler knows perfectly well that an action which is caused by something is a difficulty to his claim of libertarianism. This is why he baits and switches by saying an action is self-caused, and then hopes his readers (it seems successfully) will not notice the switch to caused by oneself.

But let me not misrepresent you. You are claiming that all actions have a cause (a person), and that person was also caused to come into existence. Isn't this the infinite chain of regress that Geisler himself warns about?

How does libertarian free will come into it, if all actions are caused by something which is caused?

(And naturally, an uncaused cause cannot begin to exist, according to Kalaam, so a person's bringing of a decision into existence cannot be an uncaused cause)

onceuponapriori

Rainbow said: Hello Rainbow. Let me be sure that I understand you correctly. You say that:

a. The concept 'cause' is an illusion.
b. This concept 'cause' was created by humans.

Do you agree that predicating 'created by humans' to 'cause' in some way implies that humans were the cause of the concept (supposedly illusory) 'cause'? You seem to be trying to use the concept 'cause' to destroy itself. I fear that this sort of practice leads to self-refutation of your claim.

Also, you hold that:

c. Gods are not the cause of existence but only the effect of humanities desire to exist.

I'm not sure that you can hold to both (a) & (c). By claiming that 'Gods' are the *effect* of 'humanities desire', aren't you implying that the *cause* of the 'Gods' (effect) is 'humanities desire'?

Its difficult (at best) to claim that 'cause' is an invalid concept while simultaneously explaining matters (implicitly) in terms of causal relationships.

Jon Curry

Unfortunately your links above don’t seem to work. But I’ve read a lot from Geisler and I think what he means when he says our decisions are “self caused” is that the self (i.e. the person) is the cause of the decisions that he makes. He certainly does not think that a decision causes itself to exist (i.e. the decision was brought about by the decision.)

If you believe that all events are caused then you must either believe in an infinite series of causes or you must believe there is such a thing as a first cause. Geisler accepts that there is such a thing as a first cause, and that people can be first causes. All effects are caused. A decision is an effect. So a decision is caused. What caused the decision? A person. What caused the person to cause the decision? There is no cause because a person is a first cause. A cause is not an effect. Only effects are caused. Since there is no effect there is no need to look for a cause.

My existence is of course another event, and I did not cause my own existence. Ultimately the cause of my existence is God. So ultimately my decision was caused by God in the sense that if he hadn’t created me I wouldn’t have freely made a decision. So God sort of is a cause in a secondary sense. God can cause the existence of things that can act as first causes. They can cause other things. For a decision to be free it must be the case that given all the factors leading up to the decision and all of the inputs and desires my will is not necessarily inclined in a determined way. God could create a being that had this power of free choice. God is not directly responsible for our decisions. He made us such that we could make free decisions, so the person would be responsible for his own decision. Of course if God had made us like robots or animals, then God would be responsible for our decisions. Our decisions are necessitated from prior inputs, whether it was programming or instinct. But this is not the case for people.

Put another way, my existence is not the direct (i.e. efficient) cause of my decision. Just because I exist, this doesn’t mean that I had to make a particular decision. The cause of the decision is the person who chose.

Steven Carr

What is this heresy? A person is a first cause, and there is no need to look for a cause? Are you saying people are not created by God????? This flies in the face of all Christian beliefs.

A cause is something that began to exist. It therefore needs a cause, according to Kalaam, as Christians will chant to you that 'Everything that begins to exist needs a cause.'

So you and Geisler are contradicting yourselves with Kalaam.

Unless you believe people are co-eternal with God.....

Jon Curry

Your question is dealt with in the paragraphs that you didn't quote. God can bring about the existence of a thing that can act as a first cause. A first cause can itself be either caused (such as a human) or uncaused (such as God.) My existence did not necessitate any decision that I might have made. It made the decision possible. I actualized the decision so I am the cause of the decision.

Steven Carr

Of course you are the cause of your decision. (On the sensible determinist version of free will, which is that the state of the Universe determines your decisions, and that you are part of the state of the Universe)

How can a first cause be caused? Isn't this just tying yourself up in knots?

So it is pretty clear that Geisler is saying our actions were caused by something which was caused by God. So, on Geisler's view, our free will actions have no causal gap - the chain of causes goes straight back to God.

Naturally though, you are at liberty to tell me what a 'caused first cause' is. I look forward to your explaining why you hit upon the word 'first' to describe one particular link in a continous chain of causes.