You conflate free will with moral accountability. Arguing for/against one is not arguing for/against another. You also conflate determinism with materialism.
The part that's wrong is that you equivocate between primary and secondary causation.
My terms were clearly defined and primary and secondary causation were not terms I used.
truth necessitates a choice between the true and the false
No, truth is true regardless of whether any agent is capable of making choices.
Where is love in that equation?
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.
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.
Knowing something in advance doesn't make you the cause of it.
That was never my argument. My argument is this. If a non-deterministic action A makes outcome X a certainty when an alternative action B would have made not-X a certainty then A is the ultimate cause of X. If additionally A is performed by an agent who is aware that A will make X happen while B would have avoided X then the agent deliberately causes X. 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.
Humans are secondary causal agents, meaning our will is separate from God's will and what we cause in the world is separate from God's causes.
You need to define what a secondary causal agent is. 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. 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.
There's no love without free will
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.
People who continually break the rules need to be banned. I thought this was what would happen but it appears that's not what has happened.
If we banned all the people who contribute nothing but insults then we would hardly need to delete comments for breaking rule 1. 95% of the insults come from 10% of the accounts and 2% of the actual users.
Aristotle presented an argument against free will from logic that is also worth considering, as described here: https://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/freewill1.htm#ldeterminism
If God knew the future when he created the world then he created things knowing that they would devolve into evil. So then God purposely went ahead and caused all the evil in the world. Does that make God evil? I don't think so, because I think this decision could be justified by the good also caused, but most people aren't comfortable with God being the author of evil.
The idea that God merely permits evil doesn't make sense given that God set everything up knowing how it would turn out, meaning he actively caused everything we witness, not merely permitting it.
As to whether free will exists, that depends how you want to define it and what other things are true. See my top-level comment on this post.
Free will really needs to be defined in order to have a proper debate about.
For example, if you define free will to simply mean the ability to make "choices" and by a "choice" you mean to pick an option from a variety of possible options then even computers would have free will. If you instead define free will to mean the ability to make a choice in which you could have done otherwise, you need to define what "could have done otherwise" means. A computer could have done otherwise if it were programmed differently or it were hit by a cosmic ray that flipped one of its bits.
Often where this attempt to define free will ends up is with the idea that a person's choices are non-deterministic and thus even a being with perfect knowledge of everything in the present (physical, mental and otherwise) would be unable to know with certainty what choice (whenever you consider a choice really takes place) you will make a fraction of a second later. But this is a problem if you also want to believe the principle of sufficient reason: that nothing can happen without a sufficient reason. Abandoning the principle of sufficient reason you kind of need an alternative explanation for why things don't just constantly happen for no reason, like why doesn't an elephant just appear in my living room every 5 seconds? This idea of free will also appears incompatible with an all-knowing God who is able to interact in time. Because then God would know what choice you will make in the future and be able to tell that to people in the past, thereby contradicting the pre-established fact that no knowledge of things in the present would allow someone to know your choice ahead of time.
Another problem with this definition of free will is that there's an element of your choice that comes from absolutely nowhere for no reason, while any remaining elements of your choice are pre-determined. So which part of your choice comes from you without being predetermined? None of it does. Your choice is part random and part pre-determined, but none of it comes from some non-deterministic part of you.
Where did God declare it? The Bible in fact says the opposite that God has numbered all your days before you were born (Psalm 139), that he directs everyone's steps and the apparently random casting of lots (Proverbs 16) and that God creates people for the purpose of saving them or sending them to hell (Romans 9).
Note that free will is not the same as the ability to make choices or personal accountability. Romans 9 says that God holds people accountable even though their choices were predetermined (like the hardening of Pharaoh's heart by God). If one wishes to claim that a person's choices being predetermined entails that they are not morally accountable for their choices then this needs to be argued rather than assumed like free will proponents always do.
I didn't find this documentary convincing at all when I watched it a while ago. There's no evidence presented that anything is being spayed other than some alleged chemical tests of water and soil. But we have no idea how the water and soil got that way, whether it's from airplane spraying, ground spraying, contaminants in airplane fuels, nearby factories emitting things into the air or water, contaminants from household water supplies, problems with the collection method, problems with the testing method or anything else.
And of course they just repeat the claim that contrails always disappear very quickly as though that is proof of anything, even though this is obviously false because clouds are made of the same stuff (water vapor) and don't disappear quickly.
It's not clear to me if this is a photo of the woman (Esther Cohen-Tizer-Epstein) writing the letter or someone else like one of her daughters. Probably Esther though. Never heard of the Divine Madness cult before, but it has a Wikipedia page.
Thanks, looks like it's that since Epstein was giving money to that lab's director: https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/10/23/132483/a-tumultuous-month-at-mit/
The American Dream (about money and banking): https://odysee.com/@BoundaryCrack:2/The-American-Dream:7
(For more detail but less entertainment is The Money Masters: https://odysee.com/@scoobyburn:1/DOC-The-Money-Masters-%281996%29:e)
Even if I agree with you I don't think think c/Conspiracies is the place for mudslinging posts
Here's a link to the paper being discussed. At a glance it looks like the plan is to broaden coverage with drones and small satellites, use machine learning to improve data flow, use a different frequency band (THz) and use backscatter signals (like RFID tags) to save power. They say this can be used by the Internet of BioNanoThings (i.e., invisible smart dust that can affect your biology). It seems that backscatter signals could potentially enable devices to send data over 6G without batteries or a wall outlet, enabling them to spy on you without power.
Of course every part of an AI's code is only doing what it was programmed to do. But there are several reasons why this is of no relevance to whether the AI is artificially intelligent.
One reason is that there's nothing in the definition of artificial intelligence that says the intelligence must be doing things it wasn't programmed to do. Another reason is that training data are not commands or lines of code for the AI to perform and do not actually program the AI - all they do is affect weights or other values in a system already programmed. Then the AI is capable of repeating patterns from its training data without actually being programmed to produce those patterns.
But suppose I were to let you redefine AI as needing to do things it wasn't programmed to do and also to consider training data as instructions that form part of an Ai's programming. Even then there's still the fact that although the components of the AI are only doing as programmed, they interact in a way that leads to behaviors which weren't specifically considered by the programmer, weren't specifically in the training data and which the programmer could not do himself even if he were to read all the training data. For example you can have an AI chatbot give a reasonable response to a question that never appeared in its training data. In that case the AI is clearly not doing something it was told how to do.
It was never told how to answer this question other than to encode the input in a certain way and feed it through the neural network (or whatever system it uses). You could say this is in a sense being told how to respond, but it's not being told to give an output that was ever conceived of by the programmer or those who made the training data. Nor would they have conceived of this response if they had thought about the same question. This is how AI is different from other computer systems. It synthesizes things in ways that its creators didn't and couldn't have conceived of. In this way it is able to output meaningful responses that are only indirectly related to the thoughts of its creators. Other computer systems just output things that are directly related to the thoughts of their creators.
Your talk of bugs introducing intelligence makes no sense to me. If a computer followed a program with bugs in it it would still be doing as its programmed, which according to you means it can't be intelligent. But anyway why would you want computers to become intelligent like humans? That's a death sentence for humanity. Your claim that I'm supporting corporate narratives makes no sense either because my whole point is that AI development needs to be stopped because it's anti-human.
Notice also that both accounts in those archives have much less activity marked "1 day ago" than within the last 24 hours, "2 days ago", "3 days ago" (although RWR is somewhat less active that day), "4 days ago" and so on. His mom must have forced him to leave the basement and go outside that day.
It's very pathetic how he and Imp both waste all their time on this site spouting retarded nonsense across multiple accounts.
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. And while most Christians would probably have your view that moral accountability is based on people having free will, Paul directly addresses the issue with the opposite answer:
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.
So not even your own apostle believes that free will is necessary for moral responsibility. Hence you were inappropriately conflating the two things.
Mental causes, logical causes, laws of the universe, and potentially divine intervention and other things outside the universe.
You still didn't point out which premise of my argument was wrong.
Motte and bailey fallacy. We weren't talking about knowledge of truth, just the existence of truth. And since you asked it's based on how things are. 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.
Let's suppose it's a type of mental state and it can be caused by prior mental states and inputs to the mind through bodily senses. Where is free will required for this?
Not true because humans have minds and dominos do not.