Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

[Eodnhoj7]

No, believe me...I'm quite certain you have no point.

Then you are not observing...

There's nothing to observe. There's not a single case of "acausality" in history, and even conceptually, it's an absurd idea.

You ignored:

"As a matter of fact your stance has no proof given a regress of causes eventually leads to a cause which is uncaused. You may observe x lead to y lead to z and assume pure causality however that last observed phenomenon, that of z, has no further causes behind it. It is the last observed phenomenon and as the last observed it leaves a distinct observation of being uncaused.

Causal chains always end in an acausal phenomenon where a continuity of causality is assumed but never proven with the last variable observed."




Dually a continual regress of causes results in a chain where being is looping itself. This chain of causes requires another chain of causes thus resulting in another chain and another chain. The totality of being thus results in a chain looping itself and this is uncaused given another regress results in the totality of being taking on the form of a regress with this form being uncaused.


Being, ie God, is reducible to an uncaused cause.

[Immanuel Can]

In just the same sense that would would say assumptively, because they've never seen it happen, that (determinstic) causality obtains between any two events.

No, I don't say that at all.

ohhkay . . . you might not say it, but it's the case.

No, I'm no Determimist. Did you not figure that out?

But a Physicalist has to be, because he believes only in physical causes.

[Immanuel Can]

You ignored:

"As a matter of fact your stance has no proof given a regress of causes eventually leads to a cause which is uncaused. You may observe x lead to y lead to z and assume pure causality however that last observed phenomenon, that of z, has no further causes behind it. It is the last observed phenomenon and as the last observed it leaves a distinct observation of being uncaused.

It was a non-sequitur.

A regress of causes does not warrant any believe in impersonal, acausal causes at all. Rather, it's a demonstration of the inescapable necessity that whatever caused the commencement of the causal chain had to be eternal and itself uncaused.

What's more, none of these are "observed phenomena," since they manifestly had to have taken place long before you were born.

You didn't "observe" anything. Nor did any human being, obviously.

Being, ie God, is reducible to an uncaused cause.

God is the uncaused Causer.

In other words, the right explanation is not "The first thing in the causal chain is 'acausal,' "but rather, that the first thing in the causal chain was not Himself part of the causal chain, but was eternal and self-existent.

[Eodnhoj7]

You ignored:

"As a matter of fact your stance has no proof given a regress of causes eventually leads to a cause which is uncaused. You may observe x lead to y lead to z and assume pure causality however that last observed phenomenon, that of z, has no further causes behind it. It is the last observed phenomenon and as the last observed it leaves a distinct observation of being uncaused.

It was a non-sequitur.

A regress of causes does not warrant any believe in impersonal, acausal causes at all. Rather, it's a demonstration of the inescapable necessity that whatever caused the commencement of the causal chain had to be eternal and itself uncaused.

What's more, none of these are "observed phenomena," since they manifestly had to have taken place long before you were born.

You didn't "observe" anything. Nor did any human being, obviously.

Being, ie God, is reducible to an uncaused cause.

God is the uncaused Causer.

In other words, the right explanation is not "The first thing in the causal chain is 'acausal,' "but rather, that the first thing in the causal chain was not Himself part of the causal chain, but was eternal and self-existent.

You assume the causal chain continues after the reduction to the first cause is observed, but because the causal chain is not observed after the firdt cause what is observed is an absence of cause, ie acausality.

To observe a series of changes prior to birth is to observe a phenomenon's image which exists as an image hence is a phenomenon in itself. Dually to not observe a series of phenomena prior to one's birth is to observe the starting phenomenon within a regressive state as uncaused, ie no cause.

The beginning point of any causal chain is always observed without cause otherwise it is not the beginning of the chain.

Finally a causer is a cause and as a cause is part of the chain. God is part of the series of effects which result in creation.

[Immanuel Can]

...the reduction to the first cause is observed,...

No, it's not. It's not "observed" at all. There was nobody alive TO "observe" the first causing when it happened.

God is part of the series of effects which result in creation.

It depends what you mean by "a part."

Is an designer "part" of an automobile? No. He's of a different order than "machine." And whereas the Ferrari wouldn't exist without Enzo, Enzo would surely exist if there were no Ferrari cars.

Did God design and create the universe? Sure. But he's above, not IN the causal chain itself. Everything in the chain depends on Him, but He does not depend on anything in the chain.

[Eodnhoj7]

...the reduction to the first cause is observed,...

No, it's not. It's not "observed" at all. There was nobody alive TO "observe" the first causing when it happened.

God is part of the series of effects which result in creation.

It depends what you mean by "a part."

Is an designer "part" of an automobile? No. He's of a different order than "machine." And whereas the Ferrari wouldn't exist without Enzo, Enzo would surely exist if there were no Ferrari cars.

Did God design and create the universe? Sure. But he's above, not IN the causal chain itself. Everything in the chain depends on Him, but He does not depend on anything in the chain.

1. Observing any causal chain always reduces to a first cause which is the end of the observation. One cannot observe the totality of the causal chain thus always relatively being reduced to an uncaused first cause. A to B to C may have a series of causes prior to A but because nothing is observed prior to A A is lacking in cause hence is acausal. Causality is inseperable from observation given a sequence of events is an act of measurement.

2. The ideas of the designer, as part of the designer, are part of the creation as these ideas give it form. God, as existing through the chain, may exist independently of the chain but because of his omnipresence he exists as part of the chain and as existing as part of the chain exists through its contingencies.

For example in scripture there where times where Jesus could not perform miracles because of the absence of faith. Dually he was able to create miracles because the people had faith. God exists as not contingent upon creation in one respect as he can exist without creation however in a dual respect because of his omnipresence allows for a contingency through creation. Omnipresence must encapsulate both contingency and absence of contingency.

[Immanuel Can]

Observing any causal chain

You didn't. You observed a phenomenon. That's all. You don't know how it was "caused." You certainly have to reason to think it was "acausally."

The ideas of the designer, as part of the designer, are part of the creation as these ideas give it form.

Just as Enzo Ferrari was "part" of the Ferrari car. But he wasn't any of its mechanical "parts."

[Eodnhoj7]

Observing any causal chain

You didn't. You observed a phenomenon. That's all. You don't know how it was "caused." You certainly have to reason to think it was "acausally."

The ideas of the designer, as part of the designer, are part of the creation as these ideas give it form.

Just as Enzo Ferrari was "part" of the Ferrari car. But he wasn't any of its mechanical "parts."

1. To observe one phenomenon as connected to another is to observe a causal chain. This connection is the point of change from one phenomenon to another. I may observe in the series of actions of being burned that I first move to the stove, then I touch the stove then I am burned.
However nothing is observed, in this chain, prior to my movements.

The reduction of causes to a single beginning point is to observe this beginning point as acausal given no other causes exist beyond it, thus the causal chain exists as a string with a beginning and end thus limits. The limits of causality is acausality as the absence of continuity of causes.

2. The ideas of Ferrari where embodied within its parts thus necessitating the parts as extensions of Ferrari. God exists through his creation as this creation is an extension of God as a mirror image of God.

[Immanuel Can]

...to observe this beginning point ...

To observe the beginning of the universe? You can't.

this creation is an extension of God as a mirror image of God.

"Mirror image"? No.

[Terrapin Station]

No, I don't say that at all.

ohhkay . . . you might not say it, but it's the case.

No, I'm no Determimist. Did you not figure that out?

But a Physicalist has to be, because he believes only in physical causes.

Determinism doesn't hinge on whether you're a physicalist or not. If you believe that from every antecedent state, there's only one possible immediately consequent state, you're a determinist, whether the way the above fact unfolds has anything to do with physical stuff or not in your ontology. For example, if from every antecedent state, there's only one possible immediately consequent state because of God's nonphysical nature or something like that, you're a determinist. That's even the case if one believes that NO physical thing actually exists whatsoever, and that all existence is just an expression of God's nonphysical nature.

[Terrapin Station]

No, I don't say that at all.

ohhkay . . . you might not say it, but it's the case.

No, I'm no Determimist. Did you not figure that out?

But a Physicalist has to be, because he believes only in physical causes.

In any event, so you agree that there's no evidence of any events being (deterministically) caused?

[Immanuel Can]

Determinism doesn't hinge on whether you're a physicalist or not.

No: but all consistent Physicalists have to be Determinists. "Physicalists" are a subset of the term "Determinists." Nobody said it was the other way around.

So one's Physicalism depends on one's Determinism. But one's Determinism does not depend merely on one being a Physicalist. As you say, one could be, for example, a Hypercalvinist, and end up being a Determinist, too.

But all Physicalists are Determinists.

[Immanuel Can]

In any event, so you agree that there's no evidence of any events being (deterministically) caused?

I agree there's no conclusive evidence for Determinism. I disagree that there is no evidence for causality. The vexed question of the moment is how Free Will can be posited, IF one assumes Determinism.

I do not assume Determinism. I would say Determinism is false, and the existence of Free Will is one of the key evidences that it is false.

[RCSaunders]

The vexed question of the moment is how Free Will can be posited, IF one assumes Determinism.

It's only a, "vexed," question if you use the silly theological term, "free will," to mean volition. Everything is determined only means nothing happens serendipitously, without explanation or reason. The explanation for all physical events is the nature of the physical existents that are that physical existence. The explanation of all human behavior is human conscious choice.

Where's the problem?

[Immanuel Can]

The vexed question of the moment is how Free Will can be posited, IF one assumes Determinism.

It's only a, "vexed," question if you the silly theological term, "free will," to mean volition.

It's the OP's term. See above. And I don't pillory him/her for that...it's a kind of colloquial shorthand, and doesn't misrepresent what we're talking about, it seems to me.

Everything is determined only means nothing happens serendipitously, without explanation or reason.

No, that's not what "Determined" means. That's what "caused" means. But the vexed question that remains is whether human volition or "free will" can be a legitimate, causal explanation for anything.

The explanation of all human behavior is human conscious choice.

Well, I'd mostly agree with you on that: human choice is involved in all human decisions.

But to give the Determinist his due, RC, we'd have to realize that some human behaviour is involved with things other than conscious choice. For example, if our brains partake of certain chemicals, then whether we want to or not, effects will follow. But I think that's not much of a real objection, since the free will position is not absolute -- it does not require us to believe that ALL things ONLY happen as a result of human volition. But Determinism has to insist that ONLY physical-material factors EVER account for ANY human behavior. That's a bridge too far, so far as I can see.

So human volition is a genuine causal factor...and the decisive one, in most human actions.