causal free will -compatabilism

[Griggsy]

Contra-causal free will would leave us at the mercy of randomness whereas causal free will- determinism/soft determinism shows causes behind our choices.With therapy and medications, I have changed some of the causes of my actions.Introversion and paranoia are no longer causes for me.It took the cause of mal-adaptation to cause me to want to change.Free will as some philosopher put it is inconceivable without causes, which are not fatalistic! The contra-causal free will of theism is thus out of line.:lol:

[themuzicman]

Contra-causal free will isn't random. It just acts without external determination.

Your characterization of contra-causal is incorrect.

Michael

[The Midge]

Or you could say God has given you a will whether you like it or not. You just have to chose to use it, accept repsonsibility for you own acts and not blame everything on something or someone else.

[cwecksrun]

[QUOTE][Contra-causal free will would leave us at the mercy of randomness whereas causal free will- determinism/soft determinism shows causes behind our choices.With therapy and medications, I have changed some of the causes of my actions.Introversion and paranoia are no longer causes for me.It took the cause of mal-adaptation to cause me to want to change.Free will as some philosopher put it is inconceivable without causes, which are not fatalistic! The contra-causal free will of theism is thus out of line. /QUOTE]

A number of things have enabled sociologists to estimate behavior in people, but they're nowhere near the predictive power of physicists. When speaking of levels that supercede on physics, do you use the same causal reasoning that physicists use? How much explanatory power does that have?

If I'm walking down a hallway I'm familiar with, and I have no predisposition to turning left or right, but I must turn, which way do I turn? What caused that?

[djdavo]

LOL..this is in theistics 101?

[wolper]

If I'm walking down a hallway I'm familiar with, and I have no predisposition to turning left or right, but I must turn, which way do I turn? What caused that?I've been thinking about this too lately, especially in connection with one of the premisses of the Kalam Cosmological Argument: everything that began to exist had a cause. If my choice to turn either way -which clearly began to exist- had a cause, and that cause had a cause, and that cause too, then working my way back I'd eventually end up at a point where I wasn't even born yet and therefore (?) can not be held responsible. But then why am I responsible for the choices I make?

[shunyadragon]

I've been thinking about this too lately, especially in connection with one of the premisses of the Kalam Cosmological Argument: everything that began to exist had a cause. If my choice to turn either way -which clearly began to exist- had a cause, and that cause had a cause, and that cause too, then working my way back I'd eventually end up at a point where I wasn't even born yet and therefore (?) can not be held responsible. But then why am I responsible for the choices I make?

The premise that 'everything has a cause' is non-sequitor. It is possible that many things can be a cause. It is possible that the cause can be simply the nature of existence, and the natural laws of existence. If one asks, what caused the nature of existence and the natural laws. Simply turtles all the way down. Its easier to argue this than Gods all the way down, where one God causes another until They or He, or IT comes up with a universe and use mortals. It could be Aliens or maybe the Simpsons all the way down as well.

[wolper]

The premise that 'everything has a cause' is non-sequitor. It is possible that many things can be a cause. It is possible that the cause can be simply the nature of existence, and the natural laws of existence. If one asks, what caused the nature of existence and the natural laws. Simply turtles all the way down. Its easier to argue this than Gods all the way down, where one God causes another until They or He, or IT comes up with a universe and use mortals. It could be Aliens or maybe the Simpsons all the way down as well.
While I admit that the KCA premisse is a bit iffy, that is not the point I was trying to make and also off topic in this thread (and btw I wouldn't call it a non sequitur, which is something that doesn't follow from the premisses). But my point is that everything that begins to exist has a cause seems to be on strained terms with free choice.

[shunyadragon]

While I admit that the KCA premisse is a bit iffy, that is not the point I was trying to make and also off topic in this thread (and btw I wouldn't call it a non sequitur, which is something that doesn't follow from the premisses). But my point is that everything that begins to exist has a cause seems to be on strained terms with free choice.

I think it is relavent concerning the issue of 'free will' and the assumption the 'everything has a cause,' because not everything neatly follows the assumed 'cause and effect' relationship of the KCA premises, or other arguments that use cause and effect relationships argue against free will. Sort of the variation or close relative of 'non-sequitor' called Post hoc ergo propter hoc, or "after this, therefore because of this", shortened to 'post hoc.' It relates to both KCA and the free-will problem. Because KCA assumes 'everything has a cause', and therefore a 'First cause' is necessary and therefore a 'Divine Cause' is assumed, and many Christians, Moslems, and other theists conclude that the Divine cause is the subsequent cause of everything. I various ways the assumptions of cause and effect do not follow the premises,