In reply to your answer, Natyrul, no, see now you're overstepping pure logic and going into assumptions...

>>>
According to free will, each freely chosen action is in fact a "first cause," independent of of all other causal factors.
>>>

That's not my definition of free will.

Be careful that you're not subconsciously using the old strawman tactic, creating a "convenient" definition of free will that is easy to dismiss. You're saying it's either free will, or causality, and I disagree. I think it's elements of both.

I accept that maybe 99% of my actions at this point are not done by free will. It's all causality... I sleep when tired, eat when hungry, work when I need money, find something fun to do when bored, my life is a result of my genetic heritage and parental upbringing, etc. I have no problem with your argument on that account, and I'm sure we could both argue long and hard to support that argument if someone paid us to do so.

You say however you don't *believe* in first causes... ok, now we're getting somewhere.

>>>
But I don't believe in first causes. I believe that Nature (that which brought about the creation of the Universe) is infinite and eternal, and is without cause.
>>>

Well then this is the point where I say that I don't *believe* in anything that's infinite and eternal, just like you don't *believe* in first causes ;)

Notice how at this point none of us can really prove anything? My "first cause" disproves your logic, and your "nature is infinite and eternal" disproves mine. You were first using pure logic, but now you're using belief to counter my argument...

That's my whole point, really. Your first premise in the OP argument is *potentially* flawed, hence your conclusion is also potentially flawed.

You can't *disprove* free will with logic if it requires a disbelief in a First Cause, hence, you have to accept the *possibility* of it existing :P My belief is that there's a part of me that's in touch with an element of "free will" while your belief is that there is no such thing.

I don't care either way, I'm happy to agree to disagree... I just like arguing with people who claim they have found "the truth", because I've yet to see anyone make a perfect argument :P


Fair enough. let's try this, then.

You are arguing that I am basing my dismissal of first cause on belief rather than logic. That's fine, because I did use the term "I believe." However, I do think I can support it logically.

Premise 1. If anything is not infinite and eternal, it is either caused or random.

Premise 2. You claim that First Cause is not caused or random.

Conclusion: First Cause is infinite and eternal.

Some people call this infinite and eternal first cause "God." I prefer to call it Nature, to avoid all of the usual "god baggage." In my view, The "god term" is uncessary and potentially misleading. However, I might be worthwhile to mention that I am on the Board of Directors of the Universal Pantheist Society.

[link to pantheist.net]

But yeah, we can agree to disagree. Reasonable people can do that. :)