@Eoppa There is something deeply unsettling about seeing a christian argue that God isn't the first cause of all things

That's not what I'm arguing, I'm rectifying a hard first cause with free will

You said that humans maintain causal power that is not determined by God

It's much more nuanced than I can fit into a paragraph

:/

It's what it reads like

I'm saying that free will is caused by God. From there the sort of 'qualia' if you could call it that of Free will is our choice. That's a horrible explanation, but it might convey the message a bit.

<:sniff:591452013682753536>

But you maintain that God does not cause the things that humans cause by their free will?

Think of a red object for example. When you cause something to be red, all these wavelengths and cones are all caused by the formal and material causes. But the actual qualia of red is something confined to the intellect.

I maintain God does not directly determine our choices

Except in a more molinist way

But you also maintain that God is the cause of all things because God caused free will?

God can interfere in our affairs but He does not always
Its not God's plan that a baby is aborted after all

Yes, our choices and actions are simply the result of our free will.

<:what:591451631590178846>

seems weak

I don't think so

Remember Adam and Eve?

<:what:591451631590178846>

Also I hate when you mention the names of all those big shot philosophers because I have no idea what they said

Even if I've read some of them

> I don't think so
@Eoppa That's *confirmation bias* <:smug:591181720565579807>

~~all Christians should read Nietzsche~~

<:wew:591452132721426484>

Well Molina formulated the idea that all of our choices are free but God puts us in situations that he knows we will make certain choices to complete God's plan.

I say I don't think so because I understand my idea better than I can communicate it

So we have free will but we are in a rat maze and it's certain that we'll follow the cheese?

That's what he said

<:oh:603773792673595405>

And I maintain the intellect is immaterial, but is strongly influenced by the material, but the free will and intellect is incorporeal

Cool explanation, it has the advantage of explaining free will and the "disadvantage" of keeping the deathly dread of determinism

I've always held explanations that say the free will can come from determined particles and laws as too big of a concession where it just devolves past compatiblism into determinism again.

I still think my original explanation is extremely cool

I think that's Locke's explanation. I'm not a fan of Locke. It's interesting and certainly adds to the debate, but ultimately I think it collapses under pressure.

*what pressure*

The pressure of actually conforming to any real definition of free will

That's what that argument has the biggest trouble doing

What's your definition?

That our will in some respect is uncaused

Assuming free will exists is the most coherent option we have.