[Alamo-Girl]

Er, if I may, I’d like to unravel the essay (at least as I understand it on first blush). I would sum it up as follows:

Everything is the effect of a cause and thus everything stems from a first cause, ergo there is no free will.

This is very similar to the concept of ‘strong determinism’ in science. Stephen Wolfram suggests that cellular automata is the unfolding mechanism in A New Kind of Science. Stephen Pinker suggests the concept of free will (and the soul) is only an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. He has written two books – one which attempts to debunk the “ghost in the machine” How the Mind Works and The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.

Of course, these views are based on scientific materialism and metaphysical naturalism (atheism) and would not recognize God as the First Cause. Then again, such science avoids the fact of a beginning altogether.

My counter-argument to these assertions on the science threads, is that algorithm at inception is proof of intelligent design. IOW, if the scientific materialist or metaphysical naturalist wishes to believe that the physical realm is ”all that there is” and it is all strongly determined – atheism nevertheless fails on the fact of initial conditions, that there was a beginning (an informed beginning at that!).

Of course, on this forum, noone is arguing for scientific materialism or atheism – but those who favor strong determinism may wish to be aware of the meaning on the “outside”.

BTW, I agree that it is most helpful when concepts are plainly spoken.

[CCWoody]

Everything is the effect of a cause and thus everything stems from a first cause, ergo there is no free will.

***My counter-argument to these assertions on the science threads, is that algorithm at inception is proof of intelligent design. IOW, if the scientific materialist or metaphysical naturalist wishes to believe that the physical realm is ”all that there is” and it is all strongly determined – atheism nevertheless fails on the fact of initial conditions, that there was a beginning (an informed beginning at that!).***

That is not a counter argument to Edward's assertion. The first cause would be God. It is absurdly easy to demonstrate as well.

My problem with this whole line of discussion about the will is that it doesn't even address the fact that the will is not the determiner of man's eternal destination. His nature is. See John 3 for starters.

Woody.

[xzins]

Thank you, AG.

Your summary is the most concise I've seen so far.

Since everything stems from a first cause that means there is no free will doesn't explain for me God's decision to grant free will.

God chose to make a rock, a duck, a tree, and a "free will" in man. My sense is that He made it properly.