I don't believe that you read my entire reply. You make the claim:

I) Therefore, if we have come into existence, we do not have free will. — Bartricks

To support the premise:

1. If we have free will, we exist with aseity. — Bartricks

The "if we have free will, we have aseity" is presumably arrived at by this argument (I'll call it the "aseity argument"):

1. If we have come into existence, we do not have free will.
2. We have free will. (premise (2))
3. Therefore we have not come into existence (we exist with aseity).

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

Furthermore, coming into existence only affects initial character you claim here:

If we have been caused by external events, then we are not morally responsible for our initial character — Bartricks

You add the environmental constraints and the constraints due to the laws of nature and then promptly discard them so as to have a premise that can be used as the basis for the aseity argument:

G)Therefore, if we have come into existence, we are not morally responsible for anything we do — Bartricks

This should be: "Therefore, if we have come into existence, and we are the products of our environment and the laws of nature, then we are not morally responsible for anything we do."

*see correction

Unless you are making a distinction between "caused by external events" and "come into existence", which could be two separate things, but when applied to the beginning of a life I don't see how.

Correction: the aseity argument conclusion changes because "if we have come into existence we do not have free will" becomes: "Therefore, if we have come into existence, and we are the products of our environment and the laws of nature, then we do not have free will."

The conclusion becomes: "Therefore we have not come into existence and and we are not the products of our environment or the laws of nature."

This contradicts your earlier premises that we are the products of our environments and the laws of nature.

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 becomes false if it is modified in the way above.

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.

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

My argument was valid, so you need to dispute a premise. Are you denying that the argument was valid?

The argument was valid and it gives us the conclusion that if I have come into existence, I do not have free will.

As I do have free will, I can conclude that I have not come into existence.

To deny this you would need to deny a premise in the argument.

It seems to me that you are now disputing the truth of D, yes? For you seem to be suggesting that there is another way in which I could be morally responsible without existing with aseity, and that is if I am morally responsible for the environment in which I am caused to exist in, and/or am morally responsible for the laws of nature that prevail in it. But that's simply false unless you think D is false. So you're disputing D, yes? I just want to be clear.

Note, D asserts that I am not morally responsible for my environment or the laws of nature. It is not a conditional: it does not say 'if'. You seem to be reading it as a conditional.

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

That makes no sense to me. Yes, of course one is subject to the laws of nature, and of course they are not laws for which one is morally responsible. The point, though, is that if I am morally responsible for my initial character, then although I am not morally responsible for the nature of my environment (including the nature of the laws that prevail in it), I am still morally responsible for how I behave, because how I behave is a function of two elements - me and my environment - and one of those elements is an element I am morally responsible for.

Nobody in their right mind thinks that to be morally responsible for an action you need to be morally responsible for 'all' of its causes. After all, imagine John says something that makes me decide to punch him. Am I morally responsible for punching John? Of course. Yet I did not cause John to say what he said - that was completely out of my control. Yet obviously that does not get me off the hook for how I reacted to it.

Similarly then, I am not morally responsible for the wider John that is my environment. But that doesn't prevent me from being morally responsible for how I react to it.

Aseity is needed to stop it from being the case that everything I am and do is a product of external causes. It is needed, in other words, to ensure that one of the ingredients in what I do is an ingredient I am morally responsible for.

I'll make this reply more coherent, as you seemed to have misunderstood my points. I'm saying that you pack "we are the products of our environment and the laws of nature" into a premise when coming into existence really only dictates that we are not responsible for our initial character. The argument you outlined in your third to last post seems to be deductively valid, but it is not the argument you seem to think it is because it leads to the conclusion to the aseity argument including the claim that we are not bound by the laws of nature and our environment. The important one is the "laws of nature" bit because even if we exist with aseity we are bound by the laws of nature. I'm not making this claim to absolutely disprove moral responsibility but rather to show that we don't exist with aseity, which is the crux of your argument.

To start, you make the following argument, I presume, to prove we exist with aseity:

1. If we have come into existence, we do not have free will.
2. We have free will. (premise (2))
3. Therefore we have not come into existence (we exist with aseity).

The first premise must be modified because of the argument you outlined in support of it. I will show why this is the case.

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:

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. I agree that we are not morally responsible for any of those things, but, given the fact that our moral responsibility is contingent upon both coming into existence and other factors not related to coming into existence, one cannot make the claim that coming into existence accounts for all the factors - factors that you appear to account for in F).

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."

G) Then becomes: "Therefore, if we have come into existence and are the products of our environment and the laws of nature, we are not morally responsible for anything we do."

The aseity argument then becomes:

1. If we have come into existence, and are the products of our environment and the laws of nature, then we do not have free will.
2. We have free will.
3. We have not come into existence and are not the products of our environment or the laws of nature.

I'm not totally certain what it means to not be the product of the laws of nature, but I do know that even a person with aseity cannot do things that defy the laws of physics (except self-originate). If this is the case it seems your argument is more in favor of godhood then aseity.

This probably doesn't need to be said, but since we obviously can't do things that violate the laws of nature, your conclusion doesn't follow.

No premise of any argument I have made asserts that we can violate the laws of nature. So I do not know what you're talking about. We don't need to violate them to be morally responsible, we just need to exist with aseity (among other things - aseity is a necessary condition, not sufficient). As my argument shows.

Are you going to address my post? Or just assert that you are correct? What would it mean not to be a product of the laws of nature? I pointed out your faulty reasoning and you need to address it. Maybe you missed the longer post above the last one?

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

Right, good - so this argument establishes not that we exist with aseity, but that aseity is required for us to be morally responsible for our initial character.

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

I do not follow you. There's what I do - my actions. Now, what causes them? Presumably a mix of me and my environment. What more could there possibly be? You can't say 'indeterminism' as that's part of my environment. So I do not see on what grounds you deny F. What extra ingredient is missing?

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

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.

Note, no mention of environment or laws of nature.

Then there's what i subsequently do - my actions - and what those actions may transform me into - my subsequent character.

Now it is 'that' which is - must be - the product of a combination of my initial character and my environment. Which is what F expresses.

The fact that you are saying "if" means that the assertion that we are the products of our environment and the laws of nature follows from the condition that we have come into existence. Those things do not follow from the condition that we have come into existence. You must also specify that we are the products of our environment and the laws of nature.

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.

You're the one who isn't addressing the argument I made: you need explicitly to deny a premise in it. It seems you are now denying F. But if you want to deny F, that's fine - but I want an argument that has the negation of F as a conclusion so that I can see on what basis you're rejecting it.

If I have not come into being, then I am 'not' the product of my environment and laws of nature. I will still have an environment and be subject to the laws of nature, but I myself am not the product of them.

Now, if Tim says something and I punch him becasue of it, does the fact I had no control whaever over what Tim said mean that I am not morally responsible for punching him? No, obviously not. For although I did indeed lack entirely any control over what Tim said, I am morally responsible for being the kind of person who reacts as I did.

Apply that to my environment and laws of nature: I am not morally responsible for them. And it is thanks to them that I do what I do, just as it was thanks to Tim saying what he did that led me to punch him. But that doesn't mean that I am not morally responsible for what my enviornment and laws of nature make me do, does it? That's as bonkers as concluding that I am not morally responsible for punching Tim because I lacked control over Tim saying what he said.

Just deny a premise. The argument was deductively valid. You need to deny a premise. Which one?

I can simplify my argument like this:

1. If a, then b.

(If I have come into being, then my initial character is the product of external events)

2. If b, then c.

(If my initial character is the product of external events, then I am not MR for my initial character)

3. Therefore, if a, then c.

(Therefore, if my initial character is the product of external events, then I am not MR for my initial character)

4. d.

(I am not MR for my environment or the laws of nature)

5. If c and d then e.

(If I am not morally responsible for my initial character or for my environment or the laws of nature, then I am not morally responsible for anything)

6. Therefore if a, then e.

(Therefore, if I have come into being, then I am not morally responsible for anything).

Now, which premise do you deny or do you think it is invalid?

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

Then why did you use the term "product of the laws of nature" earlier if it only governs what goes on?

You're the one who isn't addressing the argument I made: you need explicitly to deny a premise in it. — 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. As you said, aseity negates being a product of external causes but doesn't negate the fact that we are still bound by the laws of nature, which, as you admit, dictate only what goes on. The conclusion to the aseity argument must be rejected because it is blatantly false; we cannot violate the laws of nature with our actions.

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

I only agreed that if one comes into existence one is only not morally responsible for their initial character.

Then there's what i subsequently do - my actions - and what those actions may transform me into - my subsequent character. — Bartricks

But you are presupposing that none of your actions have a moral element without explaining why. You need to include the claim that we are bound by the laws of nature and are products of our environment. Your character may change, but only because you are interacting with an environment that affects you and that is constrained by the laws of nature.

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

Er, no. Now you're just being bad at logic. The conclusion of my argument is that if we are morally responsible, we exist with aseity. That follows from the premises.

I keep laying the argument out for you. Here it is again:

1. If a, then b
2. if b, then c
3. therefore, if a then c
4. d
5. If c and d, then e
6. Therefore, if a, then e.

Do you think that's invalid?

I'm referring to this argument:

1. If we have come into existence, we do not have free will.
2. We have free will. (premise (2))
3. Therefore we have not come into existence (we exist with aseity). — ToothyMaw

Do you deny that you use this argument? Am I straw manning you?

You're just confused.

Yes, I use that argument. The argument you need to challenge is the one I gave in support of 1.

This one:

1. If a, then b
2. if b, then c
3. therefore, if a then c
4. d
5. If c and d, then e
6. Therefore, if a, then e.

The argument you just mentioned above just continues it:

7. if a, then e
8. not e
9. Therefore not a.

Again, do you think the above is invalid?

My argument is that you need to change a premise in support of (1) (something I have already explained that you have not addressed well), and that if this premise is changed, it leads to the conclusion that we both have aseity and are not bound by the laws of nature. If this is true, we do not have free will, which I will demonstrate.

After changing the premise the continuation of your argument becomes:

1. If we have come into existence, are the product of our environment, and are bound by the laws of nature, then we do not have free will.
2. We have free will.
3. Therefore, we have not come into existence, are not the product of our environment, and are not bound by the laws of nature.

While this might seem sufficient for establishing that we have aseity and therefore free will, there is the following counterargument:

1. (following from (3) of the previous argument) If we have not come into existence, are not the product of our environment, and are not bound by the laws of nature, we have free will.
2. We are bound by the laws of nature.
3. Therefore, we do not have free will.

Dispute one of my premises. They all follow from your argument when it is modified to make sense.

Just edited this post to make it more clear; sorry.

There seems to be a confusion of "product of the laws of nature" and what I mean by "bound by the laws of nature". We should agree on which of those terms to use, as you say product, but then imply that nature only constrains actions.

You haven't answered my question. Is this argument invalid:


1. If a, then b
2. if b, then c
3. therefore, if a then c
4. d
5. If c and d, then e
6. Therefore, if a, then e.
7. not e
8. Therefore not a.

When you acknowledge that it is valid (and it is), I will then express it again substituting the letters for the claims of my argument, and then I'll ask you which one you deny. I predict that you will never do this - you will never say which premise you deny - because you do not really have a coherent objection to anything I am saying. But we'll see.....

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

No, the confusion is that you either don't understand that the argument I made was valid, or you don't understand that this means you need to challenge a premise (rather than, say, substitute one of my premises with one of your own)

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. The 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

Allows your argument to be logically valid, but it is not logically valid itself.

You write:

C) If we have come into existence, we are not morally responsible for our initial character.

And also:

D) We are not morally responsible for our environment or for the laws of nature.

These two claims are obviously true, but you need to specify in a premise that we are the product of environment and the laws of nature, otherwise the 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

Just assumes that we are products of environment and the laws of nature contingent merely upon having come into existence. That presupposes that there are no moral elements to our decisions if we have come into existence without specifying the conditions under which we exist; you can say that if we are the products of initial character, environment, and the laws of nature that we must not have moral responsibility, but you do not make the conditional claim that we are the products of our environment and the laws of nature before saying that that is all we are a product of, when you need to for your premise to make sense, otherwise, once again, you are assuming that just because you have come into existence you are the product of your environment and the laws of nature.

Even if you argue that our initial character and our actions causally result in our future character, and, thus, the actions that flow from our character, we are still interacting with an environment that affects us and are bound by the laws of nature. Furthermore, you must specify that our actions are the product of our environment and the laws of nature in addition to initial character before saying that our actions are only the product of initial character, our environment, and the laws of nature. Thus, to support this assertion you must make an additional claim that we are the product of our environment and the laws of nature.

If you do that the argument I gave contradicting the existence of free will earlier applies.

You ask me to confirm the validity of your argument so that I have to deny a premise, when, really, your argument is indeed logically valid but the following premise of yours suffers from a category error:

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.

I have explained why this is the case. Please address this issue.

Enthalpy vs Entropy

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

Right, so you need to deny a premise! I think you don't really understand what a deductively valid argument is. A deductively valid argument - such as mine - is one whose conclusion is true if the premises are. So unless or until you provide some grounds for thinking one of its premises is false, you have no grounds for rejecting its conclusion. Thus you need to dispute a premise. Which one?

Don't keep insisting I replace one of my premises with a different premise - I mean, think about it, why on earth would I do that given that my argument is deductively valid and has premises you don't seem to be able to dispute??

So again: which premise do you deny and why? Stop telling me about different premises of your own invention. Why do you keep doing that?? Address one of my premises and tell me why it is false. You need to deny the truth of one of my premises. Which one? This isn't going anywhere until you do this.

For your convenience, here is the argument that you agree is valid and thus agree that its conclusion must be true if is premises are:

1. If a, then b
2. if b, then c
3. therefore, if a then c
4. d
5. If c and d, then e
6. Therefore, if a, then e.
7. not e
8. Therefore not a.

Here it is again, with the letters replaced for my claims:

1. If I have come into existence, then I have been caused to come into existence by external events that I had nothing to do with.
2. If I have been caused to come into existence by external events that I had nothing to do with, then I am not morally responsible for my initial character
3. Therefore, if I have come into existence, I am not morally responsible for my initial character
4. I am not morally responsible for my environment or the laws of nature that prevail in it.
5. If I am not morally responsible for my initial character and not morally responsible for my environment and the laws of nature that prevail in it, then I am not morally responsible for anything
6. Therefore, if I have come into existence, I am not morally responsible for anything
7. I am morally responsible for some things
8. Therefore I have not come into existence.

Resist the urge to tell me to replace one of those premises with a different one of your own invention. That's no more or less than to ignore my argument and ask me to defend a different one that you've come up with. Why on earth would I do that?!?

You agree that the above argument is deductively valid, so you agree that 8 is true if 1-7 are. So which of 1-7 do you dispute? And note: 3 and 6 are interim conclusions, so you can't deny either of those without denying some other premise.

Address the category error. Or does that not matter for some reason? I'm being serious; I'm claiming that one of your premises is not logically valid. That seems to me to mean that there is something wrong with your argument.