This is a great answer, thank you :)

And yet here you are trying to make a theory of your own -- is it your deep psychological biases that make the decision? If this is your conclusion, then what reasoning did you use? How did you reach this conclusion? — Caldwell

My conclusion comes from 2 observations:

1. It's impossible to know that we have overcome our biases because some of our biases may be unconscious.

2. Within any given topic in philosophy, there are multiple different theories, each with pros and cons. It's very rare that there is a consensus on the 'correct theory'. (Consider theories about probability, reference, causality, free will, etc.)

So, my question is what causes philosophers to disagree? My thinking is It's actually these deep, unconscious biases which are ingrained in one's mind from their genes, upbringing, life experiences, etc. If this is true, then it means that what we believe is ultimately kind of arbitrary, and based on things that happened to us that were outside our control.

(And by 'definition of causation' I don't mean the literal dictionary definition or scientific definition. I'm referring to whether or not causation is transitive... can we just decide whether or not it is? Or is it something that needs to be discovered somehow?)

The discussion above demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about... our definition of causality seems completely arbitrary. That's why I asked 'can we just decide the definition and stick with it?' In other words, do we make up the criteria for causality, or do we discover it?

That's what lying is. Deception is an obvious fact of life. — jamalrob

Okay, I get that in most cases, it's simple like that. For example, you would say something to your partner that you think is false in order to not hurt their feelings...

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that Goebbels says 'Jews are evil', and repeats this to the public in an attempt to make people believe it. Now let's say that Goebbels knows that it is a lie. This means that he actually believes that Jews are not evil. So if he believes that Jews are not evil, then why would he want others to think that Jews are evil? If it's because he wants the public to support the extermination of Jews, then that implies that he himself thinks exterminating Jews is the right thing to do, which further implies that he thinks Jews deserve extermination, or rather that Jews are evil... So why did he admit that 'Jews are evil' is a lie, if he actually thinks it's true?

I don't know if this is making any sense or I'm just confused haha

His lie about p is that he says p is true while he believes p is false. — god must be atheist

But this is absurd to me. Why would someone want to convince someone else of something that they themselves think is false?