Free Will Argument

1505 Words7 Pages
Free will has been a topic that many philosophers debate about; there are two plausible beliefs that seem to be incompatible. The term incompatible refers to two things that cannot be true together because they are opposed to character. The two plausible beliefs are as followed: “You have free will “and “Every event has a cause”. You have free will is the first belief that people have the capacity to act freely. This belief does not mean that every single one of our actions are free. Whereas in the second belief, every event has a cause, it is the belief that something must have caused something to happen. In other words, there has to be something before to have caused the event. The problem of free will is that if we believe that every event has a cause then the belief of free will is invalid. The belief that every event has a cause and that we have free will is incompatible together base on the views of the philosophers. Philosophers who believe that we do not have free will and that belief one is false are known to be determinists. Determinists believe that every…show more content…
The belief that every event has a cause would be the explanation to the problem. Believing that every event has a cause will exclude free will. To determinists, it makes sense that everything has a cause and the belief of free will is not there to contradict the belief of every event has a cause. Secondly, free will conflicts with science. Determinists believe that science is just a way for us to uncover the causes of events. The scientific process allows us to disprove or prove the cause of an event. The field of science has broadened our understanding of how things may work in what we see in nature and in our lives. The scientific process has provided plausible explanations of the world since there is not a higher power to directly communicate with for the sake of understanding the
Open Document