Does causality undermine free will?

Objectivity and morality I find incompatible.

Objectivity is without emotion whilst morality is regulated by it.

Hence my promotion of intersubjective morality

Well if by objective you mean separate from emotion then yes, morality is objective.

You did not explain how they’re compatible though. 

Wym?

How is “objective” and “morality” compatible with each other as “objective morality”?

I explained “Objectivity is without emotion whilst morality is regulated by it.”

Because we don't need emotion to determine moral law. We can use theoretical deduction.

It is just the opposite, but not by an initial undermining condition: free will is the cause of causality. Free will exists first as a thought to decide to act, or not. The results of the thought may generate action, and that acting result undermines any other thought of acting otherwise. Creation began with opposition; to act or not to act, to be good, or evil, and the consequences follow. Every thought and action that is contrary to maintaining free will limits, or undermines our ongoing action, if not our thoughts. The demonstration of this principle is contained in Genesis 2 - the introduction of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, of which God said:  “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”  Holy Bible, Genesis 2: 8, 9. Further, God instructed Adam "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." [Holy bible, Genesis 2: 16, 17

Note that Adam was given free will to eat of any tree in the garden, including the tree of knowledge, but that the tree of knowledge had a unique, limiting consequence. God is allowing Adam to eat it. Yes, God does ay, "Thou shalt not..." but most commandments stop there. This one is offered with the added proviso, ""for in the day that thou eatest thereof..."  God is giving Adam the free will to eat of it, or not, warned that there will be a dire consequence if Adam does eat of it. No, he did not die that very "day," but in some future day.

As an aside, that usage of "day" in this verse might give us a hint that Moses was not speaking of a 24-hour day when speaking of the creation days. We have no idea how long Adam and Eve spent in the garden before eating of the good/evil tree. A thousand years. Two weeks? We don't know. Nor should we assume otherwise. The "evening and morning of the first day... and second day" occured before there was an earth to have 24 hours in its day.

 
Well that was all very interesting
 
==
 
I will first pose my case against free will and then rebut yourargument.

 
Pick a random country. Any country. Notice the process thatyou are going through. Notice how it feels to make a “choice”. Notice thatthis, if anything, is going to be the freest choice that you make in your life.You have all the countries and all the time you want to pick a country.
 
Let’s now examine this process. Within the first 3 secondsof being confronted with this question, you were faced with a blank, where nothingoccurred to you. After this period of blankness, random countries would popinto your head, and you likely had two or three countries. Let’s say that you hadthe countries Japan and Australia in mind.
 
There are two things we can observe at this stage.
 
1.     You cannot think of a country you don’t know
2.     You cannot think of a country that didn’t occur toyou.
 
The first is obvious. You can’t think that you don’t know.The second has larger implications that you would think, as everything mustoccur to you before you can consider it. But by using the term “occurring”, is likesaying the thought “crossed my mind” or “dawn on me”. The process of something occurringto me is completely random. I cannot control what occurs to me, that is the natureof something occurring.
 
You may still be unconvinced. If I were to ask you why Japanand Australia occurred to you, you may say that “I recently ate sushi, so Japanoccurred to me”. Notice that Japan occurred to you as a product of a memory ofwhich occurred to you (note that you did not choose for this memory to occur,it just did). The question still remains. Why did that memory occur to you? Well,you may say something like I enjoyed the taste of sushi. Even so, the questionstill remains, why did enjoyment have that particular effect on you? Why didn’tyou think “God, I had some awful Chinese take away a week ago, and that memory occurredto me, so China occurred to me”. Why didn’t China occur to you on the samereasoning?
 
Nevertheless, psychologists know that if subjects are placedin the hands of a good experimenter exposed to an independent variable, theyusually have no idea what is influencing them. If you were to give your businesspartner a hot beverage to hold as opposed to a cold one, they would more likelycooperate with you and when asked why they did what they did, they wouldusually, never say “well I was holding a coffee instead of a beer”.
 
We’ve now established that the countries Japan and Australiaoccurred to you, for if they didn’t occur to you, you wouldn’t have been ableto choose them. Imagine that you chose Japan, and I asked you for justificationfor your choice. Why choose Australia over Japan? When justifying your choice, you will run into the same issue as before. You may say "Well I've went to Australia a month ago so I decided to choose Australia". The question then becomes why did going to Australia have the effect that it had on you? Why didn't you say "well I went to Australia a month ago, let's go with something else". 

==
 
The argument from determinism

 Another thought experiment. If I were to collect every atom in the universe and run it into a simulation which simulates the laws of physics, I could hypothetically predict everything that will ever happen from that point onwards. Why? Well, what other factors can control your movement?  What is outside of your body and disobeys the laws of physics which can affect your choice and movement. If you say the mind, then you have some serious issues. How can a non-physical thing impact a purely physical thing? Why can the mind connect to the human brain and not an animals brain? What happens to the mind when ones dies? When do I get my mind? Why do people who suffer brain damage from impact go through serious identity shifts?

==

==
 
Let’s inspect your syllogism, which is as follows
 
1.         If Godexists then free will can exist
2.         God, orsomething similar must exist
3.         Therefore,free will must be a possibility
 
I have issues with both the first and second premise, whichI will now hop into debunking.
 
==
 
P1Rebuttal
 

It may be a surprise, but my argument from a thought experiment includes God. In fact, free will as a concept is impossible. 

I find this very interesting, as it is a direct contradiction to what many Christian philosophers claim. Their claim is usually that "everything must have a cause, therefore the universe has a cause". Interestingly enough, when it comes to God, they say "No no, God is the expectation". With the Occams razor in mind, we can conclude that it is unnecessary to add God to the equation. Why add God and say that he is not constricted by the rules? Why not just stop at the universe and say that it just occurred? 

==

I believe that the ultimate reality is randomness, though the name "ultimate reality" is far to fancy for such a cause. 

==

Free will is one of my strongest topics and I will be extraordinarily impressed if you can debunk the points I have put forwards. 

Yes, there are no other votes

Sorry if I was harsh. I hate being formal. 

Wrong. "Free-will" means to act on one's own will. Ones own will is not random, therefore free will is always predictable. Randomness would undermine free will.

The fact that human actions are not random but causal supports the theory of free will.

You never answered my actual theory of why God has ultimate free will.

Your thought experiment was an argument for causality, not an argument against free will.

Therefore, free will is still a possibility. Additionally, theists can be intellectually honest while still believing free will and ethics objectively exists.

Sorry. I meant to say this

The universe has a cause:

Something with innate existence, must necessarily exist:

What is this thing?:

Therefore, God, or something similar, must necessarily exist. Claiming that the universe is the first cause is illogical as science clearly shows us it has a clear beginning.

I must specify what I mean by "free will".

Free will: B - the ability to act at one's own discretion.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/free_will]

Discretion: The freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/discretion]

In other words, free will means that your actions are not controlled by someone else. A free person can act solely based on his own will.

Free will means to act based on one's own will. Imagine for a second you create a robot - which will say "hi" every time it hears people say "oh look a robot". This robot can do nothing but react to reality - it will automatically do whatever you want it to do, given that you know the commands. This robot has free will.

Take a person out of the universe and put him in a cell for a thousand years without any outer force working upon him. When you put that person back into the exact situation he once was in, he will be completely different and act differently. Why? Because he has free will. Free will means to act differently based on their own will.

The difference is that between a planet up close and a planet far away. If you look at the earth from afar and know the laws of physics, the earth has a clear pattern, it cannot move unlike you predicted. But humans live here and say we created a big giant engine that pushed the earth away - this would have been impossible to predict from afar- The same difference applies to humans, you cannot predict a mans by looking at the world, you must know the interior of the person.

Among other things, determinism is incorrect.

Determinism: The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.[lexico.com/definition/determinism]

Why? Because the will is a valid cause for human action. If a murderer kills someone, you cannot say "Oh, he just started killing people because person a did action b" - that is not how it works. Causality only implies determinism if the will does not exist - which it does. If the will is the brain, a mind, a soul - it does not really matter as long at it exists. 

Free will by definition exists - both in God/the ultimate reality and possibly in reality as a whole. 

The debate is how big a part free will play in peoples lives, and I would argue a lot. You could place two different people in the exact same situation and they will act differently.

Can we talk about how you never replied to my very extensive argument. 

By this definition gravity undermines free will as we are necessarily constrained in our actions by it. In other words I am not able to fly to the moon despite my willingness or even desire to do so. I might overcome this with enough thrust but that does not mean that there is no constraints to my will. Perhaps you should reform your argument with this in mind?