Darren New wrote:
> The existence of "free will" negates the argument that God must have 
> created the universe as a "first cause".
> 
> The "first cause" argument is that every effect has a cause, and hence 
> for the universe to exist, something before the universe must have 
> caused it, and hence God exists.[1]
> 
> On the other hand, either our decisions are caused by what's in the 
> environment, or some aspect of our decisions are not subject to prior 
> causes. In the first case, it would be unjust to blame someone for not 
> believing in your religion if such disbelief is entirely the fault of 
> external circumstances. In the latter case, many decisions have effects 
> without precedent cause, and hence the requirement for God to have 
> created the universe disappears.

I don't think that the latter bit of this argument necessarily holds 
without some additional assumptions about the nature by which decisions 
arise.  The view which, I imagine, would be taken by someone arguing 
both for God and for free will is that our decisions are not caused by 
the material state of the universe precisely because we are conscious 
agents (ie have "souls" from a religious perspective).

The view here would be that the *only* uncaused effects are those 
arising from a conscious agent.  Thus if something before the universe 
must have caused it, that something must have been an act by a conscious 
agent.  Since "conscious agent that created the universe" sounds almost 
exactly like a standard definition of God, by this like of reasoning, it 
seems to lead to an argument *for* the necessity in a God creating the 
universe rather than against it.

Of course this all depends on a particular viewpoint on free will, but 
it seems to be the one that you're talking in your argument so I think 
it's valid.  Even if a dualistic view of the mind with respect to free 
will wasn't want you had intended, I suspect that it's almost certainly 
a common viewpoint of those who would argue for both God and free will, 
so your counterargument will still need to address the relationship 
between mind and body more directly to be convincing.

Post a reply to this message