You conflate free will with moral accountability. Arguing for/against one is not arguing for/against another. You also conflate determinism with materialism.
I don't think so. No free will necessarily leads to no moral accountability and that should be evident. Determinism usually assumes materialism. If you have another worldview then let's hear it. What other causes are there beside material causes and how are they justified?
My terms were clearly defined and primary and secondary causation were not terms I used.
You're arguing on a subject where those terms apply. Just because you didn't use them because you didn't know them and can't make the proper distinction, that doesn't mean they are not relevant. That's exactly why I brought it up, because this this will help you understand how God being the primary cause of everything doesn't make him the secondary cause that led to evil coming into the world.
No, truth is true regardless of whether any agent is capable of making choices.
Knowledge of truth requires choice and evaluation. This is in the sphere of epistemology. Truth's ontological existence is another matter. But since you affirm the realist position, in what way does objective truth exist and what is it grounded in?
Love could be defined as an emotion one feels or as a disposition one has towards a thing or as actions one does in service of a thing. None of those definitions would require free will.
What is an emotion and what causes it? If it's simply a causally determined reaction to outside stimuli, then it's an instinct no different than any other instinct or mechanism in the body (or in nature as a whole, because there's no meaningful distinction between what you call a human and the other causally determined instances of matter - dominos - in the universe).
PS: Come to think of it, the whole notion of evil makes no sense under determinism. There are zero objective moral values possible if strict determinism is true. Morality presupposes the ability to choose the good over not-good (evil). This ties in to culpability and moral responsibility. So your entire argument is self-refuting.
Here's the main argument refuting determinism in under a minute which I went over: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA2mYO0CwQM
You conflate free will with moral accountability. Arguing for/against one is not arguing for/against another. You also conflate determinism with materialism.
I don't think so. No free will necessarily leads to no moral accountability and that should be evident. Determinism usually assumes materialism. If you have another worldview then let's hear it. What other causes are there beside material causes and how are they justified?
My terms were clearly defined and primary and secondary causation were not terms I used.
You're arguing on a subject where those terms apply. Just because you didn't use them because you didn't know them and can't make the proper distinction, that doesn't mean they are not relevant. That's exactly why I brought it up, because this this will help you understand how God being the primary cause of everything doesn't make him the secondary cause that led to evil coming into the world.
No, truth is true regardless of whether any agent is capable of making choices.
Knowledge of truth requires choice and evaluation. This is in the sphere of epistemology. Truth's ontological existence is another matter. But since you affirm the realist position, in what way does objective truth exist and what is it grounded in?
Love could be defined as an emotion one feels or as a disposition one has towards a thing or as actions one does in service of a thing. None of those definitions would require free will.
What is an emotion and what causes it? If it's simply a causally determined reaction to outside stimuli, then it's an instinct no different than any other instinct or mechanism in the body (or in nature as a whole, because there's no meaningful distinction between what you call a human and the other causally determined instances of matter - dominos - in the universe).
PS: Come to think of it, the whole notion of evil makes no sense under determinism. There are zero objective moral values possible if strict determinism is true. Morality presupposes the ability to choose the good over not-good (evil). This ties in to culpability and moral responsibility. So your entire argument is self-refuting.
Here's the main argument refuting determinism in under a minute which I went over: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA2mYO0CwQM
You conflate free will with moral accountability. Arguing for/against one is not arguing for/against another. You also conflate determinism with materialism.
I don't think so. No free will necessarily leads to no moral accountability and that should be evident. Determinism usually assumes materialism. If you have another worldview then let's hear it. What other causes are there beside material causes and how are they justified?
My terms were clearly defined and primary and secondary causation were not terms I used.
You're arguing on a subject where those terms apply. Just because you didn't use them because you didn't know them and can't make the proper distinction, that doesn't mean they are not relevant. That's exactly why I brought it up, because this this will help you understand how God being the primary cause of everything doesn't make him the secondary cause that led to evil coming into the world.
No, truth is true regardless of whether any agent is capable of making choices.
Knowledge of truth requires choice and evaluation. This is in the sphere of epistemology. Truth's ontological existence is another matter. But since you affirm the realist position, in what way does objective truth exist and what is it grounded in?
Love could be defined as an emotion one feels or as a disposition one has towards a thing or as actions one does in service of a thing. None of those definitions would require free will.
What is an emotion and what causes it? If it's simply a causally determined reaction to outside stimuli, then it's an instinct no different than any other instinct or mechanism in the body (or in nature as a whole, because there's no meaningful distinction between what you call a human and the other causally determined instances of matter - dominos - in the universe).
PS: Come to think of it, the whole notion of evil makes no sense under determinism. There are zero objective moral values possible if strict determinism is true. Morality presupposes the ability to choose the good over not-good (evil). So your entire argument is self-refuting.
Here's the main argument refuting determinism in under a minute which I went over: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA2mYO0CwQM
You conflate free will with moral accountability. Arguing for/against one is not arguing for/against another. You also conflate determinism with materialism.
I don't think so. No free will necessarily leads to no moral accountability and that should be evident. Determinism usually assumes materialism. If you have another worldview then let's hear it. What other causes are there beside material causes and how are they justified?
My terms were clearly defined and primary and secondary causation were not terms I used.
You're arguing on a subject where those terms apply. Just because you didn't use them because you didn't know them and can't make the proper distinction, that doesn't mean they are not relevant. That's exactly why I brought it up, because this this will help you understand how God being the primary cause of everything doesn't make him the secondary cause that led to evil coming into the world.
No, truth is true regardless of whether any agent is capable of making choices.
Knowledge of truth requires choice and evaluation. This is in the sphere of epistemology. Truth's ontological existence is another matter. But since you affirm the realist position, in what way does objective truth exist and what is it grounded in?
Love could be defined as an emotion one feels or as a disposition one has towards a thing or as actions one does in service of a thing. None of those definitions would require free will.
What is an emotion and what causes it? If it's simply a causally determined reaction to outside stimuli, then it's an instinct no different than any other instinct or mechanism in the body (or in nature as a whole, because there's no meaningful distinction between what you call a human and the other causally determined instances of matter - dominos - in the universe).
PS: Come to think of it, the whole notion of evil makes no sense under determinism. There are zero objective moral values possible if strict determinism is true. So your entire argument is self-refuting.
Here's the main argument refuting determinism in under a minute which I went over: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA2mYO0CwQM
You conflate free will with moral accountability. Arguing for/against one is not arguing for/against another. You also conflate determinism with materialism.
I don't think so. No free will necessarily leads to no moral accountability and that should be evident. Determinism usually assumes materialism. If you have another worldview then let's hear it. What other causes are there beside material causes and how are they justified?
My terms were clearly defined and primary and secondary causation were not terms I used.
You're arguing on a subject where those terms apply. Just because you didn't use them because you didn't know them and can't make the proper distinction, that doesn't mean they are not relevant. That's exactly why I brought it up, because this this will help you understand how God being the primary cause of everything doesn't make him the secondary cause that led to evil coming into the world.
No, truth is true regardless of whether any agent is capable of making choices.
Knowledge of truth requires choice and evaluation. This is in the sphere of epistemology. Truth's ontological existence is another matter. But since you affirm the realist position, in what way does objective truth exist and what is it grounded in?
Love could be defined as an emotion one feels or as a disposition one has towards a thing or as actions one does in service of a thing. None of those definitions would require free will.
What is an emotion and what causes it? If it's simply a causally determined reaction to outside stimuli, then it's an instinct no different than any other instinct or mechanism in the body (or in nature as a whole, because there's no meaningful distinction between what you call a human and the other causally determined instances of matter - dominos - in the universe).
PS: Come to think of it, the whole notion of evil makes no sense under determinism. There are zero objective moral values possible if strict determinism is true. So your entire argument is self-refuting.
Here's the refutation of determinism in under a minute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA2mYO0CwQM
You conflate free will with moral accountability. Arguing for/against one is not arguing for/against another. You also conflate determinism with materialism.
I don't think so. No free will necessarily leads to no moral accountability and that should be evident. Determinism usually assumes materialism. If you have another worldview then let's hear it. What other causes are there beside material causes and how are they justified?
My terms were clearly defined and primary and secondary causation were not terms I used.
You're arguing on a subject where those terms apply. Just because you didn't use them because you didn't know them and can't make the proper distinction, that doesn't mean they are not relevant. That's exactly why I brought it up, because this this will help you understand how God being the primary cause of everything doesn't make him the secondary cause that led to evil coming into the world.
No, truth is true regardless of whether any agent is capable of making choices.
Knowledge of truth requires choice and evaluation. This is in the sphere of epistemology. Truth's ontological existence is another matter. But since you affirm the realist position, in what way does objective truth exist and what is it grounded in?
Love could be defined as an emotion one feels or as a disposition one has towards a thing or as actions one does in service of a thing. None of those definitions would require free will.
What is an emotion and what causes it? If it's simply a causally determined reaction to outside stimuli, then it's an instinct no different than any other instinct or mechanism in the body (or in nature as a whole, because there's no meaningful distinction between what you call a human and the other causally determined instances of matter - dominos - in the universe).