I) Therefore, if we have come into existence, we do not have free will. — Bartricks
1. If we have free will, we exist with aseity. — Bartricks
F) If we have come into existence, then everything we do is a product of initial character, environment and laws of nature, none of which we are in any way morally responsible for — Bartricks
If we have been caused by external events, then we are not morally responsible for our initial character — Bartricks
G)Therefore, if we have come into existence, we are not morally responsible for anything we do — Bartricks
This argument only applies if you leave out the constraints to free will you acknowledge in this premise:
F) If we have come into existence, then everything we do is a product of initial character, environment and laws of nature, none of which we are in any way morally responsible for
— Bartricks — ToothyMaw
Actually, upon thinking about it, even if you have aseity you are still constrained by the laws of nature - you cannot perform actions that are physically impossible according to the laws of physics. Thus, the conclusion to the aseity argument is not an argument for aseity. — ToothyMaw
A) If we have come into existence, then we have been caused to come into existence by events external to ourselves
B) If we have been caused by external events, then we are not morally responsible for our initial character
C) Therefore, if we have come into existence, we are not morally responsible for our initial character — Bartricks
F) If we have come into existence, then everything we do is a product of initial character, environment and laws of nature, none of which we are in any way morally responsible for — Bartricks
You make this argument:
A) If we have come into existence, then we have been caused to come into existence by events external to ourselves
B) If we have been caused by external events, then we are not morally responsible for our initial character
C) Therefore, if we have come into existence, we are not morally responsible for our initial character
— Bartricks
I totally agree with this and acknowledge that it is deductively valid. However, later you write: — ToothyMaw
F) If we have come into existence, then everything we do is a product of initial character, environment and laws of nature, none of which we are in any way morally responsible for
— Bartricks
The reasoning here seems faulty to me; the premise C) merely dictates that coming into existence means not being responsible for one's initial character. To say that coming into existence means that we are also products of the environment and laws of nature does not follow. — ToothyMaw
One could modify the premise to be: "if we have come into existence and are the products of our environment and the laws of nature, then everything we do is the product of initial character, environment, and the laws of nature, none of which are we morally responsible for." — ToothyMaw
If we have come into existence, then everything we do is a product of initial character, environment and laws of nature, none of which we are in any way morally responsible for — Bartricks
I am doing - if I exist with aseity then I am not the product of anything, am I? Nothing created me. That's the point. If I exist with aseity then I have not come into being. Laws of nature govern what goes on, not what exists. — Bartricks
You're the one who isn't addressing the argument I made: you need explicitly to deny a premise in it. — Bartricks
No, there's me with my initial character. If that has been created by factors external to me - which it will have been if I don't exist with aseity - then I am not morally responsible for being the me that I am with the character that I have, yes? You've agreed with that. — Bartricks
Then there's what i subsequently do - my actions - and what those actions may transform me into - my subsequent character. — Bartricks
I don't need to deny a premise but rather carry out your argument to its conclusion: the conclusion is that we we have aseity and are not bound by the laws of nature. — ToothyMaw
There seems to be a confusion of "product of the laws of nature" and what I mean by "bound by the laws of nature". — ToothyMaw
F) If we have come into existence, then everything we do is a product of initial character, environment and laws of nature, none of which we are in any way morally responsible for — Bartricks
F) If we have come into existence, then everything we do is a product of initial character, environment and laws of nature, none of which we are in any way morally responsible for — Bartricks
Of course it's valid, but you are being a slippery eel, drawing attention away from the flaw in your argument by demanding I accept its logical validity — ToothyMaw
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.