The Argument Of Freedom Vs. Causity

787 Words 4 Pages
Freedom vs Causality In the argument of freedom vs. causality, causality follows the laws of nature, which implies that nothing happens without cause, in other words meaning, life as we know it is just one big cycle of cause and effect. Freedom, on the other hand, allows for spontaneity, meaning not every effect has a prior cause, thus allowing for new events to occur. So, the argument, or rather question, is: which one of these is true…freedom, or causality? With freedom comes free will, a mind, and a soul. With causality, comes a body (made up of matter) reacting to the matter (e.g. trees, buildings, other bodies, etc.) surrounding it, actions that are not our own, and a fate that is predetermined. With freedom, we belong to ourselves, and …show more content…
A great example of this question would be the evolution vs. creation debate. If we are to agree that everything has a cause and an effect, and that X created Y, and W X, then we must ask what created A? What is the prior cause of A? So when we look at the two sides of our evolution vs. creation debate, on the side of evolution, it is presumed that there was a giant cluster of mass that exploded and created the entire universe that we know today, but the problem with this theory in accordance with causality, is that if the mass was the cause of the universe, what was the cause of the mass? And on the side of creation, it is presumed that a higher power (e.g. God) created the universe, but the problem with this theory is that it raises the question: what created that higher power? Through causality, neither side of the debate is valid, because with both sides the question remains: what was the prior cause? Or rather what was the first cause that began it all? Once again, causality means that everything has a prior cause, but if we were to argue that the mass was the cause in itself, we’d be admitting that there is a such thing as spontaneous causes i.e. transcendental freedom. The same goes for creation. We cannot argue that God created the universe without arguing about what created God. If God was created from matter like the rest of us, where did the matter come from? And if matter was always there, shouldn’t everything else in the world have always been there? It’s an endless circle of questioning. Going back to the “if X created Y” situation, Kant argues that “the state of affairs X from which Y arose must itself be something that has happened (i.e. has come to exist having previously not done so), because if X had always existed then Y would always have existed also, rather than having just happened,” which is to say if we

Related Documents