09 May '07 20:58>
If one could explain exactly how free will worked then one would have to explain a choice with reference to the cause for that choice. If one was to do this then it would prove that it would not be free will but some caused choice. So although one can explain the general principle of how we might have free will , there will always come a point where one says I chose A because I chose A.
This does not mean that there is no rationale behind choice A , but that the rationale was not sufficient to cause the choice or make the choice inevitable.
So , if I am caught between A and B I have reasons to choose either but no reason is compelling enough to cause me to choose. I still have to choose. So what is the explanation behind me choosing A? There is no explanation other than the fact that I made a selection. I am my own cause. If it could be explained then it would not be free , because a cause would have been found.
So explaining free will ultimately is like trying to explain why God exists. So why does God exist? The answer of course there is no why , he just IS. If there was a why he could not be God...the "why" would become God.
Disagree/ Agree?
This does not mean that there is no rationale behind choice A , but that the rationale was not sufficient to cause the choice or make the choice inevitable.
So , if I am caught between A and B I have reasons to choose either but no reason is compelling enough to cause me to choose. I still have to choose. So what is the explanation behind me choosing A? There is no explanation other than the fact that I made a selection. I am my own cause. If it could be explained then it would not be free , because a cause would have been found.
So explaining free will ultimately is like trying to explain why God exists. So why does God exist? The answer of course there is no why , he just IS. If there was a why he could not be God...the "why" would become God.
Disagree/ Agree?