The other thread was closed for whatever reason, so I didn't have opportunity to reply to this response from Luke and others: First my original Quote: Well, that depends on how you define RESPOND. If it is seen as a genuine, reaction, or reply of one agent in RESPONSE to the action or words of another agent, then I do not believe your deterministic system leaves room for this concept of a 'response.' (now, I admit, guys like Biblicist are less deterministic than you are, so I may address him a bit differently on this point). This is a perfect analogy of puppetry or robotics in your system and the very reason I reject your concept of response. If you think we are mere reactionary (pendulum like) creatures that God punishes for our innate reactions then so be it. But that makes about as much since as someone pulling the pendulum back and then when it swings the other way, taking the pendulum in your hands and yelling at at saying, "Why do you swing the other way! I told you not to do that!" and then slamming it to the ground and kicking it into a fire. It is just non-sense from my perspective. I know it makes since to you, but I'm telling you how I see that view. Because I do consider that a moral 'response.' If anything it is a innate reflex or instinctive reaction...not a rational moral response. Question begging...you're assuming determinism's premise is true when that is the very point up for debate.