You just agreed with my position (that God causing all the evil in the world doesn't make him evil) while claiming to be arguing against me.

That's a strawman. I explicitly said God doesn't cause ANY evil in any way shape or form because it's contrary to His nature. Everything God does is good, true and just.

Therefore if God wasn't pre-determined to create a universe that certainly (as proved by his foreknowledge) led to evil (action A leading to X) and could have chose not to create (action B leading to not-X), but yet he did, it follows that God creating the universe was the ultimate cause of evil in the universe. Additionally God was aware this action would lead to evil in the universe while the alternative would have avoided it, so therefore God deliberately caused evil in the universe.

Which part of this argument is wrong? Notice I said nothing about causing evil being evil, God being morally accountable for causing evil or humans lacking accountability for their role in bringing the evil about.

The part that's wrong is that you equivocate between primary and secondary causation. But the argument is not even valid when talking about secondary causation (created causes). Here's a very clear example:

If I have a son and I do a great job being a good father, but still my son, who's now an adult, falls into bad habits and eventually commits murder, am I responsible for the evil caused by him?

I'd say the whole argument as you put it begs the question because it assumes determinism and takes away the ability of real choice from the equation. Just like I said in the comment above - you presuppose physicalist domino-effect causality (A-> B-> C) where each each cause is the predetermined effect of a previous cause and acts a certain with no free will - basically it behaves like an inanimate physical object (so naturally, you arrive to determinism and the circle is complete).

Aristotle is cool and all, but like all ancient philosophers, he took a lot of things for granted because at that point no one was questioning the foundational ideas about metaphysics and epistemology. Many centuries passed before Descartes and later Hume, Kant and the existentialists had the ball rolling questioning foundational beliefs.

You need to define what a secondary causal agent is.

Secondary causation refers to the created causes we normally talk about (fire causes heat, choices cause actions, medicine causes healing, etc.) These causes are real and effective, operating according to their own natures.

In a row of dominoes ending with a button you can call the second domino a "secondary causal agent" but it doesn't change the fact that if laws of physics are deterministic then the fall of the first domino causes the button to get pressed.

No, you can't because a domino is an inanimate object and not an agent. Agent refers to a rational being capable making choices which influences other objects and agents in the universe.

Same thing if a general orders a soldier to kill someone - we say the general caused the death, regardless of the fact that there was a soldier who also caused the death and could have opted to disobey orders.

That's because in that context, the soldier is supposed to defer his personal assessment and act as a tool, an extension of the higher-up's will. Also, in the many cases soldiers are also held responsible for not disobeying orders on some occasions like the nazi executions. This a deontological and ethical question about when "I was just following orders" is appropriate and when it's not (and who gets to decide where the line is drawn).

But if determinism is true, the general isn't responsible too, because he's simply a domino down the causal chain. Responsibility, justice or any moral judgement is nonsensical in that system.

Citation needed. We all know people can love and make choices yet it is conceivable that these things happen via deterministic mental processes. If you say that a deterministic love cannot be love then you are simply defining love to be something that humans may not be capable of.

First of all, if determinism is true it's not simply about people not having free will and choice - that's just the surface of the problem as normies see it. Philosophically, it also leads to the impossibility of knowledge and truth. Why? Because truth necessitates a choice between the true and the false. But if every mind in existence is predetermined, no real evaluation of a given proposition ever takes place (I'm predetermined to say A is true, and you - B is true and at no tie-breaker is possible because C is also predetermined to output either A or B).

If determinism is the case, all that there is is matter governed by predetermined chemical reactions, that are effects of previous reactions and so on going back to the First cause. Where is love in that equation? Do you mean more predetermined chemical reactions? I highly doubt many people will agree on that definition (not an appeal to majority, just saying). Is the water boiling at 100 degrees any different than love? What's the meaningful distinction between me loving something vs the opposite?

You just agreed with my position (that God causing all the evil in the world doesn't make him evil) while claiming to be arguing against me.

That's a strawman. I explicitly said God doesn't cause ANY evil in any way shape or form because it's contrary to His nature. Everything God does is good, true and just.

Therefore if God wasn't pre-determined to create a universe that certainly (as proved by his foreknowledge) led to evil (action A leading to X) and could have chose not to create (action B leading to not-X), but yet he did, it follows that God creating the universe was the ultimate cause of evil in the universe. Additionally God was aware this action would lead to evil in the universe while the alternative would have avoided it, so therefore God deliberately caused evil in the universe.

Which part of this argument is wrong? Notice I said nothing about causing evil being evil, God being morally accountable for causing evil or humans lacking accountability for their role in bringing the evil about.

The part that's wrong is that you equivocate between primary and secondary causation. But the argument is not even valid when talking about secondary causation (created causes). Here's a very clear example:

If I have a son and I do a great job being a good father, but still my son, who's now an adult, falls into bad habits and eventually commits murder, am I responsible for the evil caused by him?

I'd say the whole argument as you put it begs the question because it assumes determinism and takes away the ability of real choice from the equation. Just like I said in the comment above - you presuppose physicalist domino-effect causality (A-> B-> C) where each each cause is the predetermined effect of a previous cause and acts a certain with no free will - basically it behaves like an inanimate physical object (so naturally, you arrive to determinism and the circle is complete).

You need to define what a secondary causal agent is.

Secondary causation refers to the created causes we normally talk about (fire causes heat, choices cause actions, medicine causes healing, etc.) These causes are real and effective, operating according to their own natures.

In a row of dominoes ending with a button you can call the second domino a "secondary causal agent" but it doesn't change the fact that if laws of physics are deterministic then the fall of the first domino causes the button to get pressed.

No, you can't because a domino is an inanimate object and not an agent. Agent refers to a rational being capable making choices which influences other objects and agents in the universe.

Same thing if a general orders a soldier to kill someone - we say the general caused the death, regardless of the fact that there was a soldier who also caused the death and could have opted to disobey orders.

That's because in that context, the soldier is supposed to defer his personal assessment and act as a tool, an extension of the higher-up's will. Also, in the many cases soldiers are also held responsible for not disobeying orders on some occasions like the nazi executions. This a deontological and ethical question about when "I was just following orders" is appropriate and when it's not (and who gets to decide where the line is drawn).

But if determinism is true, the general isn't responsible too, because he's simply a domino down the causal chain. Responsibility, justice or any moral judgement is nonsensical in that system.

Citation needed. We all know people can love and make choices yet it is conceivable that these things happen via deterministic mental processes. If you say that a deterministic love cannot be love then you are simply defining love to be something that humans may not be capable of.

First of all, if determinism is true it's not simply about people not having free will and choice - that's just the surface of the problem as normies see it. Philosophically, it also leads to the impossibility of knowledge and truth. Why? Because truth necessitates a choice between the true and the false. But if every mind in existence is predetermined, no real evaluation of a given proposition ever takes place (I'm predetermined to say A is true, and you - B is true and at no tie-breaker is possible because C is also predetermined to output either A or B).

If determinism is the case, all that there is is matter governed by predetermined chemical reactions, that are effects of previous reactions and so on going back to the First cause. Where is love in that equation? Do you mean more predetermined chemical reactions? I highly doubt many people will agree on that definition (not an appeal to majority, just saying). Is the water boiling at 100 degrees any different than love? What's the meaningful distinction between me loving something vs the opposite?

You just agreed with my position (that God causing all the evil in the world doesn't make him evil) while claiming to be arguing against me.

That's a strawman. I explicitly said God doesn't cause ANY evil in any way shape or form because it's contrary to His nature. Everything God does is good, true and just.

Therefore if God wasn't pre-determined to create a universe that certainly (as proved by his foreknowledge) led to evil (action A leading to X) and could have chose not to create (action B leading to not-X), but yet he did, it follows that God creating the universe was the ultimate cause of evil in the universe. Additionally God was aware this action would lead to evil in the universe while the alternative would have avoided it, so therefore God deliberately caused evil in the universe.

Which part of this argument is wrong? Notice I said nothing about causing evil being evil, God being morally accountable for causing evil or humans lacking accountability for their role in bringing the evil about.

The part that's wrong is that you equivocate between primary and secondary causation. But the argument is not even valid when talking about secondary causation (created causes). Here's a very clear example:

If I have a son and I do a great job being a good father, but still my son, who's now an adult, falls into bad habits and eventually commits murder, am I responsible for the evil caused by him?

I'd say the whole argument as you put it begs the question because it assumes determinism and takes away the ability of real choice from the equation. Just like I said in the comment above - you presuppose physicalist domino-effect causality (A-> B-> C) where each each cause is the predetermined effect of a previous cause and acts a certain with no free will - basically it behaves like an inanimate physical object (so naturally, you arrive to determinism and the circle is complete).

You need to define what a secondary causal agent is.

Secondary causation refers to the created causes we normally talk about (fire causes heat, choices cause actions, medicine causes healing, etc.) These causes are real and effective, operating according to their own natures.

In a row of dominoes ending with a button you can call the second domino a "secondary causal agent" but it doesn't change the fact that if laws of physics are deterministic then the fall of the first domino causes the button to get pressed.

No, you can't because a domino is an inanimate object and not an agent. Agent refers to a rational being capable making choices which influences other objects and agents in the universe.

Same thing if a general orders a soldier to kill someone - we say the general caused the death, regardless of the fact that there was a soldier who also caused the death and could have opted to disobey orders.

That's because in that context, the soldier is supposed to defer his personal assessment and act as a tool, an extension of the higher-up's will. Also, in the many cases soldiers are also held responsible for not disobeying orders on some occasions like the nazi executions. This a deontological and ethical question about when "I was just following orders" is appropriate and when it's not (and who gets to decide where the line is drawn).

But if determinism is true, the general isn't responsible too, because he's simply a domino down the causal chain. Responsibility, justice or any moral judgement is nonsensical in that system.

Citation needed. We all know people can love and make choices yet it is conceivable that these things happen via deterministic mental processes. If you say that a deterministic love cannot be love then you are simply defining love to be something that humans may not be capable of.

First of all, if determinism is true it's not simply about people not having free will and choice - that's just the surface of the problem as normies see it. Philosophically, it also leads to the impossibility of knowledge and truth. Why? Because truth necessitates a choice between the true and the false. But if every mind in existence is predetermined, no real evaluation of a given proposition ever takes place (I'm predetermined to say A is true, and you - B is true and at no tie-breaker is possible because C is also predetermined to output either A or B).

If determinism is the case, all that there is is matter governed by predetermined chemical reactions, that are effects of previous reactions and so on going back to the First cause. Where is love in that equation? Do you mean more predetermined chemical reactions? Is the water boiling at 100 degrees any different than love? What's the meaningful distinction between me loving something vs the opposite?