I’m not that well versed in philosophy to dive deeply into theory, but I don’t see a self-refutation. There is obviously a problem of first cause, but I don’t think it refutes my argument about free will.
Also, I think Universal Causation is mostly non-controversial and most people agree on it and operate accordingly.
And yes, I meant the problem of the first cause, but it probably isn't a strict refutation...
And also, when it's stated as "every effect has a cause" (not "everything," as I first understood it), then it's probably even a tautology :)
To the free will part itself - I can say that I decided to do B because of a reason A (so the effect B was caused directly by my decision and indirectly by A) and I still have a free will?
This is also a deep philosophical debate. I just meant that your decisions are based on internal and external circumstances, that are based on the physical world. Your decision is an effect of multiple causes (e.g. your mood, your beliefs, state of chemicals in your brain, weather, news that you’ve seen in tv, your genes, your childhood memories, etc). The “free will” as commonly understood would be then an independent act, a miracle that defies the constraints of physical world.
