I'll return once more to say this: there is, though, certainly at least one Free Will - a singular entity, whose consciousness continues to shape and maintain the world.
In essence, it has no personality - it is pure creation, the uncaused first cause, "nothing more" than the concept-machine. Still, it has a Will to Create, and that is the same Will which permeates all things, pushing the borders of space outwards, setting and maintaining the orbits of the planets, informing humans as to their activities, and so on.
Do you think that an uncasued first cause should be understood as a product of will? If so, why?
It's not an analytic statement. I.e. "an uncaused first cause is a product of will" is not true by virtue of logic or conceptual analysis (i don't think?). So then it must be a statement that is true in virtue of experience. But this is problematic because for something to be true in virtue of experience we must have a class of related observed instances to infer from. But we have no other instances of uncaused first causes, so we have no basis upon which to infer that an uncaused first cause must be a product of will.
But we know that all *caused* causes are not a product of will (or at least we are pretty sure of this from every-day experiences such as hitting billiard balls, throwing things, and all the rest). Maybe we can logically derive the statement 'if something is an uncaused cause, it is a product of will' from the statement 'if something is a caused cause, it is not a product of will'?
We can put 'if something is a caused cause, it is not a product of will' into logical form:
(1) If a then -b (a = something being a caused cause, b = something being a product of will)
So if something is an uncaused cause it will be -a. But from a false antecedent you don't get a false consequent. I.e. it is a formal fallacy to say (if a then b, not a therefore not b). So if we have -a, we don't get --b (ie that it isn't not caused by will - meaning it is caused by will)
1. we cannot infer from experience that an uncaused first cause will be a product of will (for we have no other instances of uncaused first causes to infer from)
2. we can infer from experience than a *caused* forst cause is not the product of will, but from this we cannot derive that an uncaused first cause will be a product of will (this would be to 'deny the antecdent': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
This just leaves the following possibility:
The statment "an uncaused first cause will be a product of will" is analytic, or true in virtue of the terms used. If this is not true, then an uncaused first cause (if it exists at all! - another debate) could be blind.
I had fun writing this post