Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?

[bahman]

You are contradicting yourself.

No, you don't understand the basics.

You explained the basics but were not sharp enough to see how you were in contradiction and failed to relate it to the topic.

I already explained what I mean by vertical causation. It means that God constantly creates something into existence. No vertical causation then no billiard ball, no earth, no universe. Am I clear now? Now suppose that vertical causation is in the place which means that things exist. Now we could have horizontal causation in which things can move each other, for example, Earth can move a billiard ball.

And what I explained is related to the topic since we are dealing with the vertical causation of humans and I am questioning that humans cannot be free.

[Sculptor]

No, you don't understand the basics.

You explained the basics but were not sharp enough to see how you were in contradiction and failed to relate it to the topic.

I already explained what I mean by vertical causation. It means that God constantly creates something into existence. No vertical causation then no billiard ball, no earth, no universe. Am I clear now? Now suppose that vertical causation is in the place which means that things exist. Now we could have horizontal causation in which things can move each other, for example, Earth can move a billiard ball.

And what I explained is related to the topic since we are dealing with the vertical causation of humans and I am questioning that humans cannot be free.

None of this is relevant

[bahman]

You explained the basics but were not sharp enough to see how you were in contradiction and failed to relate it to the topic.

I already explained what I mean by vertical causation. It means that God constantly creates something into existence. No vertical causation then no billiard ball, no earth, no universe. Am I clear now? Now suppose that vertical causation is in the place which means that things exist. Now we could have horizontal causation in which things can move each other, for example, Earth can move a billiard ball.

And what I explained is related to the topic since we are dealing with the vertical causation of humans and I am questioning that humans cannot be free.

None of this is relevant

So, you don't understand.

[Sculptor]

I already explained what I mean by vertical causation. It means that God constantly creates something into existence. No vertical causation then no billiard ball, no earth, no universe. Am I clear now? Now suppose that vertical causation is in the place which means that things exist. Now we could have horizontal causation in which things can move each other, for example, Earth can move a billiard ball.

And what I explained is related to the topic since we are dealing with the vertical causation of humans and I am questioning that humans cannot be free.

None of this is relevant

So, you don't understand.

No you do not understand.
And until you draw this useless discussion back to the thread question you will not show otherwise.

[Age]

It cannot be reached.

What do you mean by 'eternity cannot be reached'?

It means that no matter how long you wait you cannot reach it.

LOL So, this means 'yesterday' can NOT be reached, NOR could 100 years EVER be reached BECAUSE 'you', "bahman", no matter how long 'you' wait you can NOT reach 'it'.

Also, can the year 2,000,000 bc be reached?

Of course not. You need a way to go back in time. But the question is whether someone who lived in 2,000,000 BC can reach now.

And the answer is YES.

[bahman]

None of this is relevant

So, you don't understand.

No you do not understand.
And until you draw this useless discussion back to the thread question you will not show otherwise.

The title of OP is: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free? We are talking about vertical causation when something's existence depends on something else given the discussion we had.

[bahman]

What do you mean by 'eternity cannot be reached'?

It means that no matter how long you wait you cannot reach it.

LOL So, this means 'yesterday' can NOT be reached, NOR could 100 years EVER be reached BECAUSE 'you', "bahman", no matter how long 'you' wait you can NOT reach 'it'.

I am talking about the eternal or infinite future rather than the finite future.

Also, can the year 2,000,000 bc be reached?

Of course not. You need a way to go back in time. But the question is whether someone who lived in 2,000,000 BC can reach now.

And the answer is YES.

How about a person who lived in the infinite past? Could he reach now from the infinite past?

[Sculptor]

So, you don't understand.

No you do not understand.
And until you draw this useless discussion back to the thread question you will not show otherwise.

The title of OP is: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free? We are talking about vertical causation when something's existence depends on something else given the discussion we had.

But vertical causation is a fantasy.
You are just comparing two fantasies with one another; free will and "vertical/horizontal causation", you are not asking any questions - you are just playing a semantic argument.

Obviously if god is keeping everything going then free will is rubbish. You don't need a special lexicon to know that.

[bahman]

No you do not understand.
And until you draw this useless discussion back to the thread question you will not show otherwise.

The title of OP is: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free? We are talking about vertical causation when something's existence depends on something else given the discussion we had.

But vertical causation is a fantasy.

How do you know? Do you have an argument against vertical causation?

You are just comparing two fantasies with one another; free will and "vertical/horizontal causation", you are not asking any questions - you are just playing a semantic argument.

I am not comparing free will and vertical/horizontal causation.

Obviously if god is keeping everything going then free will is rubbish. You don't need a special lexicon to know that.

God does not keep everything going. He just holds things in existence. Things can then move freely on their own according to Catholic teaching.

[Age]

It means that no matter how long you wait you cannot reach it.

LOL So, this means 'yesterday' can NOT be reached, NOR could 100 years EVER be reached BECAUSE 'you', "bahman", no matter how long 'you' wait you can NOT reach 'it'.

I am talking about the eternal or infinite future rather than the finite future.

The one that BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, does NOT exist, right?

Of course not. You need a way to go back in time. But the question is whether someone who lived in 2,000,000 BC can reach now.

And the answer is YES.

How about a person who lived in the infinite past? Could he reach now from the infinite past?

LOL That one is ALREADY HERE, NOW.

you REALLY DO NOT YET anyway have ANY REAL COMPREHENSION of what 'infinite' Truly ACTUALLY IS, do you?

MAYBE WHEN you STOP BELIEVING that 'it' does NOT exist, then you can come to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND what thee 'infinite Universe', which you live WITHIN, Truly IS, EXACTLY.

[Age]

No you do not understand.
And until you draw this useless discussion back to the thread question you will not show otherwise.

The title of OP is: Could something whose existence depends on something else be free? We are talking about vertical causation when something's existence depends on something else given the discussion we had.

But vertical causation is a fantasy.
You are just comparing two fantasies with one another; free will and "vertical/horizontal causation", you are not asking any questions - you are just playing a semantic argument.

Obviously if god is keeping everything going then free will is rubbish.

This could NOT be MORE Wrong AND False even if you wanted to make it.

But, then again, the posters and adult human beings of this day and age STILL had NOT YET WORKED OUT what the term and phrase 'free will' ACTUAL MEANT.

You don't need a special lexicon to know that.

[bahman]

LOL So, this means 'yesterday' can NOT be reached, NOR could 100 years EVER be reached BECAUSE 'you', "bahman", no matter how long 'you' wait you can NOT reach 'it'.

I am talking about the eternal or infinite future rather than the finite future.

The one that BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, does NOT exist, right?

What?

And the answer is YES.

How about a person who lived in the infinite past? Could he reach now from the infinite past?

LOL That one is ALREADY HERE, NOW.

you REALLY DO NOT YET anyway have ANY REAL COMPREHENSION of what 'infinite' Truly ACTUALLY IS, do you?

MAYBE WHEN you STOP BELIEVING that 'it' does NOT exist, then you can come to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND what thee 'infinite Universe', which you live WITHIN, Truly IS, EXACTLY.

Oh please, you cannot reach unreachable.

[Age]

I am talking about the eternal or infinite future rather than the finite future.

The one that BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, does NOT exist, right?

What?

you do BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that the 'eternal or infinite future' does NOT exist, right?

Or, do you now BELIEVE that 'it' DOES exist?

How about a person who lived in the infinite past? Could he reach now from the infinite past?

LOL That one is ALREADY HERE, NOW.

you REALLY DO NOT YET anyway have ANY REAL COMPREHENSION of what 'infinite' Truly ACTUALLY IS, do you?

MAYBE WHEN you STOP BELIEVING that 'it' does NOT exist, then you can come to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND what thee 'infinite Universe', which you live WITHIN, Truly IS, EXACTLY.

Oh please, you cannot reach unreachable.

LOL you REALLY DO NOT YET, anyway, have ANY REAL COMPREHENSION of what 'you' ACTUALLY ARE, do you?

[bahman]

The one that BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, does NOT exist, right?

What?

you do BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that the 'eternal or infinite future' does NOT exist, right?

Or, do you now BELIEVE that 'it' DOES exist?

Whether the future exists or not is a different topic. I am talking about an infinite future that cannot be reached given the definition of infinity.

LOL That one is ALREADY HERE, NOW.

you REALLY DO NOT YET anyway have ANY REAL COMPREHENSION of what 'infinite' Truly ACTUALLY IS, do you?

MAYBE WHEN you STOP BELIEVING that 'it' does NOT exist, then you can come to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND what thee 'infinite Universe', which you live WITHIN, Truly IS, EXACTLY.

Oh please, you cannot reach unreachable.

LOL you REALLY DO NOT YET, anyway, have ANY REAL COMPREHENSION of what 'you' ACTUALLY ARE, do you?

What do you mean?

[popeye1945]

The free decision does not depend on (or is not reducible to) the current state of affairs (by the current state of affairs I mean the existence of something, a mental state for example which is about making a decision in a situation) that is reducible. The existence of something (the current state of affairs) which is reducible by definition depends on something else (this is the definition of reducible). Therefore something which is reducible cannot be free or something which is free is irreducible.

In compact form:

1) Freedom is not reducible to A that is reducible
2) A is reducible
3) Therefore, A cannot be free

There is no such thing as independent existence but even if there were one would need to ask free from what?