Citation needed. Philosophers don't agree on where morality comes from and likewise they won't be able to agree on where moral accountability comes from.
How can someone be accountable if he never had any choice in the matter? Again, in determinism nothing is morally good or bad - it just is. For example, Jeffrey Epstein was determined to be a pdf assassin for the Rothschilds. Why is that bad under determinism and how is he guilty of being himself? Is a lion guilty of eating his cubs?
Quite clearly here in Romans 9:19-23 he responds to your objection: How could God hold people morally accountable whose choices have been pre-determined by God? His answer is that God can do what he wants with his creation just like a potter can create a pot for the purpose of destroying it.
None of the Church fathers understood that passage to mean that some people were created for damnation. As St. John Chrysostom says about this passage: "God supplies grace for salvation, but damnation comes from the sinner’s own choices.". The metaphor used is about God's justice, not fatalism. Only many centuries later protestants started reading the interpretation you have into the text, resurrecting old heresies. Sadly western-minded people are used to the calvinistic interpretation you have.
You still didn't point out which premise of my argument was wrong.
I presupped your argument - determinism destroys the possibility not only of knowledge (evaluating truth propositions) but also of ethics:
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.
And since you asked it's based on how things are.
Saying truth is how things are is circular. How do you know how things are and how do you know your perception of "things" aligns with what's true?
But I don't see why knowledge of truth would require free will. For example if knowledge is defined along the lines of justified true belief then none of those elements seem to require free will. You can believe something because your mind was deterministically put into that state of belief.
Here's why. We have two propositions: A is true and A is false. If determinism is the case, you can't really know what is the true proposition because you're determined to choose one or the other and at no point do you make an evaluation and choose the true one over the false one.
Here's another example: Imagine two calculators: one is programmed to output 2+2=4 and the other 2+2=BOOBS. You have no way of evaluating which one is true because your output is determined also - you're basically a calculator yourself. You have no access to objective truth because whatever you or anyone else is outputting has been determined. At no point do you have a real evaluator who can look at the outputs and say "hmm seems like this one is true", because that would also be a determined output and stand on equal grounds as any other output. This means that all propositions are equally valid => knowledge is impossible.
JTB assumes free will - not only truth does, but also belief and justification are real choices. In fact in determinism there's no justification at all because your reasoning is determined and not the result of evaluating propositions and sifting the truth over the false.
Not true because humans have minds and dominos do not.
A mind without free will is a determined input-output mechanism though. At no point does it act on its own.
Citation needed. Philosophers don't agree on where morality comes from and likewise they won't be able to agree on where moral accountability comes from.
How can someone be accountable if he never had any choice in the matter? Again, in determinism nothing is morally good or bad - it just is. For example, Jeffrey Epstein was determined to be a pdf assassin for the Rothschilds. Why is that bad under determinism and how is he guilty of being himself? Is a lion guilty of eating his cubs?
One of you will say to me, “Then why does God still find fault? For who can resist His will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why did You make me like this?” Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use? What if God, intending to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the vessels of His wrath, prepared for destruction?
Quite clearly here in Romans 9:19-23 he responds to your objection: How could God hold people morally accountable whose choices have been pre-determined by God? His answer is that God can do what he wants with his creation just like a potter can create a pot for the purpose of destroying it.
None of the Church fathers understood that passage to mean that some people were created for damnation. As St. John Chrysostom says about this passage: "God supplies grace for salvation, but damnation comes from the sinner’s own choices.". The metaphor used is about God's justice, not fatalism. Only many centuries later protestants started reading the interpretation you have into the text, resurrecting old heresies. Sadly western-minded people are used to the calvinistic interpretation you have.
You still didn't point out which premise of my argument was wrong.
I presupped your argument - determinism destroys the possibility not only of knowledge (evaluating truth propositions) but also of ethics:
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.
And since you asked it's based on how things are.
Saying truth is how things are is circular. How do you know how things are and how do you know your perception of "things" aligns with what's true?
But I don't see why knowledge of truth would require free will. For example if knowledge is defined along the lines of justified true belief then none of those elements seem to require free will. You can believe something because your mind was deterministically put into that state of belief.
Here's why. We have two propositions: A is true and A is false. If determinism is the case, you can't really know what is the true proposition because you're determined to choose one or the other and at no point do you make an evaluation and choose the true one over the false one.
Here's another example: Imagine two calculators: one is programmed to output 2+2=4 and the other 2+2=BOOBS. You have no way of evaluating which one is true because your output is determined also - you're basically a calculator yourself. You have no access to objective truth because whatever you or anyone else is outputting has been determined. At no point do you have a real evaluator who can look at the outputs and say "hmm seems like this one is true", because that would also be a determined output and stand on equal grounds as any other output. This means that all propositions are equally valid => knowledge is impossible.
JTB assumes free will - not only truth does, but also belief and justification are real choices. In fact in determinism there's no justification at all because your reasoning is determined and not the result of evaluating propositions and sifting the truth over the false.
Not true because humans have minds and dominos do not.
A mind without free will is a determined input-output mechanism though. At no point does it act on its own.
Citation needed. Philosophers don't agree on where morality comes from and likewise they won't be able to agree on where moral accountability comes from.
How can someone be accountable if he never had any choice in the matter? Again, in determinism nothing is morally good or bad - it just is. For example, Jeffrey Epstein was determined to be a pdf assassin for the Rothschilds. Why is that bad under determinism and how is he guilty of being himself? Is a lion guilty of eating his cubs?
One of you will say to me, “Then why does God still find fault? For who can resist His will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why did You make me like this?” Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use? What if God, intending to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the vessels of His wrath, prepared for destruction?
Quite clearly here in Romans 9:19-23 he responds to your objection: How could God hold people morally accountable whose choices have been pre-determined by God? His answer is that God can do what he wants with his creation just like a potter can create a pot for the purpose of destroying it.
None of the Church fathers understood that passage to mean that some people were created for damnation. As St. John Chrysostom says about this passage: "God supplies grace for salvation, but damnation comes from the sinner’s own choices.". The metaphor used is about God's justice, not fatalism. Only many centuries later protestants started reading the interpretation you have into the text, resurrecting old heresies. Sadly western-minded people are used to the calvinistic interpretation you have.
You still didn't point out which premise of my argument was wrong.
I presupped your argument - determinism destroys the possibility not only of knowledge (evaluating truth propositions) but also of ethics:
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.
And since you asked it's based on how things are.
Saying truth is how things are is circular. How do you know how things are and how do you have knowledge of truth?
But I don't see why knowledge of truth would require free will. For example if knowledge is defined along the lines of justified true belief then none of those elements seem to require free will. You can believe something because your mind was deterministically put into that state of belief.
Here's why. We have two propositions: A is true and A is false. If determinism is the case, you can't really know what is the true proposition because you're determined to choose one or the other and at no point do you make an evaluation and choose the true one over the false one.
Here's another example: Imagine two calculators: one is programmed to output 2+2=4 and the other 2+2=BOOBS. You have no way of evaluating which one is true because your output is determined also - you're basically a calculator yourself. You have no access to objective truth because whatever you or anyone else is outputting has been determined. At no point do you have a real evaluator who can look at the outputs and say "hmm seems like this one is true", because that would also be a determined output and stand on equal grounds as any other output. This means that all propositions are equally valid => knowledge is impossible.
JTB assumes free will - not only truth does, but also belief and justification are real choices. In fact in determinism there's no justification at all because your reasoning is determined and not the result of evaluating propositions and sifting the truth over the false.
Not true because humans have minds and dominos do not.
A mind without free will is a determined input-output mechanism though. At no point does it act on its own.