ToothyMaw

I suppose it is implausible to assert that one's current character is a blend of all of the factors external to their wills and their interactions wit...

I have absolutely no background in logic at all. I'm just learning as I'm going. But that makes sense. I'll think on your last post.

I'm thinking if it's to be a general rule it's the first one.

Should it be or: N(p) N(p entails all q) N(q)

I have a reply to this, but first I'll fix my argument. 1. No one has power over the facts of the past and the laws of nature. 2. No one has power ove...

I actually make use of that argument. Check out one of my earlier posts. The argument I gave depends on the one in the SEP article.

But I don't see how my argument: is an instance of the modal fallacy, even if my serial killer example might not be absolute proof that we cannot choo...

You are obviously no longer being serious, if you ever were.

And I disputed that we have free will, so unless you can find a flaw in my argument you cannot say it is false because we exist with aseity. Unless yo...

Not to say I'm some psychopath out to fuck everything up; I just want to actually get to the bottom of this.

I don't really care.

Then I'll change my argument. 1. No one has power over the facts of the past and the laws of nature. 2. No one has power over the fact that the facts ...

I mean maybe you are forgetting, but my position originally was that we have no basis for the concept of moral responsibility. It is enough for me to ...

Correction: aseity

No, free will requires power over the facts of the future; you would need to have magical abilities to be able to alter the facts of the past in the p...

Yes.

I will change my definition in the OP. I had the previous definition in mind. Sorry. With the previous definition in mind, one's control over one's ac...

I totally acknowledge this here: My reply is that you don't account for the effect of other's free choices, something that follows from assuming free ...

I fixed it a little I think. 1) I am not morally responsible for anything iff I am not morally responsible for my initial character, the environment, ...

I'll make it formal: 1) I am not morally responsible for anything iff I am not morally responsible for my initial character, the environment, the laws...

And if you say we are sometimes responsible for other people's choices, then there is something we are morally responsible for and thus 5 is false.

You write: I actually agree with this. However, implicit in 5 is the assumption that the only things that affect us are our environment, initial chara...

This premise assumes that we are only the products of initial character, environment, and the laws of nature that prevail in it: Otherwise there could...

Not to say I'll make a duplicate thread!

I'll have to take a look at your argument now that you have modified it. I'll see if I can deny a premise, but if not, I will conclude that we exist w...

You changed this premise: What I meant was that it was semantically invalid. It now appears to be totally valid.

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....

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 fo...

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 charac...

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 validi...

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 t...

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 ...

I'm referring to this argument: Do you deny that you use this argument? Am I straw manning you?

Then why did you use the term "product of the laws of nature" earlier if it only governs what goes on? I don't need to deny a premise but rather carry...

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 conditi...

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 you...

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.

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 an...

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 physic...

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 physic...

Correction: the aseity argument conclusion changes because "if we have come into existence we do not have free will" becomes: "Therefore, if we have c...

I don't believe that you read my entire reply. You make the claim: To support the premise: The "if we have free will, we have aseity" is presumably ar...

It appears to me you are packing some sort of soft determinism into this conclusion: The conclusion does not follow because you must specify that exte...

But surely there must be a distinction between moral acts and other acts? And if there is a distinction, then you must admit that there is a special q...

I have an issue with this; one could not be self-originated yet have free will. They just aren't responsible for their coming into existence. They can...

You appear to be having having an emotional reaction.

To this I would say: if one assumes that no one has power over the facts of the future if determinism is true, then determinism needs to be proven fal...

It isn't question begging if the only way people can be held morally responsible is nested in an indeterministic view of free will, which many assert ...

It seems to be a circular argument - attempting to prove that we do not come into existence by assuming we have free will, only to claim that because ...

Supposing that we might have the status of aseity because aseity is possible for some things is different from demonstrating that people do not come i...