Free will and determinism

[CoreyD]

Genuine choice can only be free will choices, as under determinism it is simply a lack of knowledge that creates ambiguity and a sensation of "choices" happening. The problem is that several posters are trying to have their cake and eat it to, stating that all of our decisions have sufficient antecedent causes while also attributing agency to human beings. They're ignoring logical challenges such as overdetermination in favor of a rather simplistic model of cause and effect that doesn't really align with what we have learned through empirical exploration.

I agree totally.
I didn't mean to misrepresent your statement.
Just trying to be certain @Bradskii understood that we were on the same page, and he did not have to repeat or clarify anything.
For some reason, he seems to think he has to repeat, or clarify, as if persons are not following.
Perhaps it's due to determined factors.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do you mean the definition you pulled from a philosophical worldview?
I already responded to that.
Free will is not defined based on a philosophical view, or doctrine.
Free will is the ability to make choices, regardless of the determining factors... whether past, present, or future.

Indeed.

You did not explain anything.
You merely made assertions which you cannot support, and it's obvious you still can't by this response.
I am not asking you to repeat your assertion, which I responded to. I'm pointing out to you how your assertion is misplaced - a fallacy of misplaced concreteness.

Iit's that concreteness or completeness...that provides the determinist the emotional satisfaction from the worldview.

The odd thing is that while worldviews can change the perception of reality and alter behavior.....determinism does not. Determinists still behave as free will actors....which is wildly different from a new Christian convert who may decide to start going to church. Determinism is tied directly to moral and legal responsibility.....yet the determinist doesn't seem to be able to act as if it does.

It does not matter the amount of times you repeat yourself, you can never change the fact that thousands who prefer to be with their family, rather than out there facing death, and killing, and seeing dead bodies, and exploding limbs.

Indeed....one might wonder why anyone would engage in uncomfortable or painful behavior while simultaneously expressing a preference not to. You would imagine that the determinist claims that person must be lying.

They do not choose what they prefer, and so, it is a fact people do not always do what they prefer, contrary to your assertion.

Choices have to become described differently or else they were chosen amongst other choices... aka free will.

If I am wasting your time by clearly showing that your OP and argument is flawed, that would only be due to your wanting to run your thread forever, without admitting that it's a red herring.

He prefers to cling to the emotional satisfaction created by a theory based on vague terms which are poor at describing behavior lol.

One hundred and fifty pages, is enough time to wrap it up, don't you think... especially in light of the fact that it's been repeatedly shown up for what it is.

The OPs position is pretty far from what it is now.

 

[CoreyD]

I think it's time for someone to explain how they make decisions. I don't think that anyone else is going to do it. So off you go. Explain the process point by point and we'll investigate it. I'll wait here while you think about it.

What you have done here is taken out of context what I said.
This happens when you break a post apart, and separated statement that go together.
Clearly, you did not understand the statements that followed what preceding them.
Perhaps try reading them again... connected.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Genuine choice can only be free will choices, as under determinism it is simply a lack of knowledge that creates ambiguity and a sensation of "choices" happening.

Disagree. Perfect knowledge of outcomes isn't required for those outcomes to be distinctly different. If I choose between two sodas without perfect knowledge one is flat... it would result in different behavior rather than if I made the other choice even if choices appear identical.

 

[CoreyD]

If we ask 'Why did that happen?' we are looking for a cause of it happening. We are looking for the reason why it happened. What you are saying is that you make decisions for no reason. There was no cause for them being made.

Hence my request for you to give an example of a decision that you made so that we can examine it. And hence the reason why you will avoid doing so. It's not a mystery. That's a nonsensical excuse. You just haven't got an example that fits your position.

Maybe @CoreyD will try.

Try to get you to listen?
How will I do that?
How many times have I said to that reason is not a problem where free will is concerned, and does not disqualify it... nor support your deterministic argument.
Shall I count the number of times... 1, 2, and I am sure there is one more, after these.

So, why you keep bringing up reason, I don't know, except it reminds me of a man that jumped off a cliff, and did not realize how high he was, until too late, but seeing that he could not save himself, he grabbed at a straw, and held on to it, hoping that this would save him. ...all the while, he's singing, "Tell me why, why why?"

So, I gave a girl a flower.
Are you looking for the cause?
I like her, and I want to see her smile.

Why?​

She's a lovely person.​

Why?​

Why what?​

 

[Mark Quayle]

@Bradskii + @Mark Quayle: it appears that you both are highly skeptical of the claim that there can be a "me" somehow embedded inside the human person that can make decisions that are not otherwise determined. So when someone claims that they can make a decision that is, at least in some measure, not determined, you understandably ask for an account as to how that decision was arrived at. And, when other posters claim it is a mystery, you suggest, if I understand you correctly, that such an appeal to mystery is not legitimate.

I should think that if there is a "me" embedded inside, instead of "this person IS me", it still comes to the same thing. This 'me' is not independent of causation. I am not self-existent first cause. 'Me' is the result of antecedent causes.

An appeal to mystery is not as good an argument as axiomatic logic upon which scientific and philosophical investigation (not to mention everyone's everyday thought processes) have depended for millennia. If the 'fact' of uncaused choices is self-evident, it is only because it is how it seems to us --"face value" experience, as someone here called it-- which is hardly a measure of truth, even though it is more handy than the conclusions of abstract thinking drawn upon axiomatic principle.

There is no such thing as decisions that are not in some measure not determined. And maybe there is where the difference in our views lies. I hear in arguments with Christian proponents of 'libertarian' freewill, the same thing, that everyone has "limited autonomy". Autonomy, in this context (i.e. not meaning autonomy from one-another) either is, or is not. There is no partway. If one has influences to which he gives way, or influences against which he rebels, they had influence and his choice is determined by those influences, be they external, internal, or whatever else one may use to describe them or attach to them. To insist on self-determination, in this case, is only to insist on choice --not on autonomy.

Are you sure this is fair? My current position on all this is that the evidence leans very strongly in the direction that all our actions and decisions are fully determined. Or, they are the result of deterministic forces supplemented by randomness. Either way, I see no "place" for free will, at least based on the current mainstream "scientific" understanding of the world.

Apparent 'randomness' only. There it is again, that "face value" presumption. There is no such thing as randomness, any more than there is such a thing as chance. To the human observer, it is considered chance, or random, only because we don't have the sight and intellectual capacity to know all the causes behind what we see happening. As RC Sproul said (and I don't know if it was his originally), "Chance is just a shortcut for, 'I don't know.'."

But notice how these arguments are made. You ask if we are being fair. What do you mean by that? Are you thinking that we should admit to some amount of mystery that departs from causation, merely because we don't know all the causes? Are you thinking that we should admit to some lack of causation, because we don't know the "spark" of being that transitions to self-aware sentience "across the bridge" from causes? If there even IS such a thing, it, too, is caused to be. Even for the believer, if there is something transcendent and independently unique in each of us, it/she/he is still caused to exist. I can find no intellectually honest escape from the simple logic of causation.

However, I wonder whether you are assuming that it is in principle impossible for there to be a "me" that is, at least to some degree, free to make decisions.

Strawman. We believe there is a "me" that makes the decisions. We just don't believe the me is uncaused, nor that the workings of the mind of that "me", or even the "self-ness" of that "me", are independent of causation.

I see no reason for ruling out the a priori possibility that inside each of us there dwells a "me" that is indeed free to, for example, decide whether or not to steal a candy bar. Let's say I see a candy bar that I want to eat, but I have no money. Is it not at least possible that there is a "me" that feels the lure of the candy bar but is able to choose, on the basis of moral principles, to not steal it.

Of course! But how is that independent of causation? How is that even independent of --let's call it, an "oracle's",-- prediction (based on having all the facts), as to exactly what that choice will be?

I want to end by emphasizing something really important. It is one thing to say that the scientific evidence strongly supports the idea that my choice to not steal the candy bar is, in fact, determined. But it is quite another to rule out, a priori, repeat a priori, the possibility that there is a "me" that can, through some means that we do not understand (and hence can be called a mystery) "freely" elect to not steal it.

My objection here is several-fold:

1) I'm calling this the first, so I won't forget to include it. For the Christian believer, the notion that there is such a thing as good, apart from God, should be understood as a pagan notion. For the non-believer, the notion that there is such a thing as good, whether there actually even is such a thing objectively or not, it is still the result of antecedent causes, as also are subjective decisions on the matter.
2) Also, so that I won't forget: For the believer also, I will admit --in fact, I claim-- that the human mind cannot altogether rationally conceive --(thus, 'mystery')-- how there can be any particular individuality or self-ness, once transformed into whatever we will be in Heaven, in which God will have such particular delight, and to whom God finds reason to give independent reward, and whom scripture says is given a name that only that person and God himself knows. But I will tell anyone that if we are there literally "members" of the "Body of Christ", as scriptures say, perhaps roughly analogous to cells in the human body, or, if you wish to make any other word-pictures or representations of whatever it is to be independently "me", here, or there, IT IS STILL CAUSED TO BE, and therefore, also every particularity derived from it, is not of 'first-causal' ontology.
3) For the rest of us, or for the believers who wish to discuss this from a 'naturalistic' perspective, Axiom demands that if something is an effect, it is caused. If we are effects --no matter how you wish to describe the "me" within-- we are caused, to include our individuality and our "self-ness". Logic demands that we are effects, since to not be effects demands self-existent status, and the self-existence of these little beings is a rationally void proposition. Ontology is about what a thing is --only description-- not its very being, and whatever comes to be has antecedent cause for its being.
4-100) The rest of this I will leave out, as you probably get the idea --it doesn't matter what you come up with: If we are not ourselves first cause(s), we are caused, and therefore, everything we do is caused, to include our choosing and our choices. Then, if 'caused', then "determined".

 

[CoreyD]

Disagree. Perfect knowledge of outcomes isn't required for those outcomes to be distinctly different. If I choose between two sodas without perfect knowledge one is flat... it would result in different behavior rather than if I made the other choice even if choices appear identical.

Are you sure you disagree?
Does knowledge of the outcome matter in choices?
People make choices without thinking about the outcome.
Sometime it's just a matter of being driven by ego, for example.
Am I wrong?

Did I misunderstand you? If so, I apologize in advance.

 

[CoreyD]

Silence may be Gold. Video Biblical advice how to stop arguing with bad spirits.

"I needed this. I live with a friend temporarily and she misunderstands me a lot and twist my words. I will be quiet. Let go and Let God."

You the man, Aaron. O wise one.

 

[CoreyD]

I would like to address the matter of whether determinism excludes the possibility of making decisions. I maintain that it is relatively self-evident that it does not. A computer program, which I assume we will agree is completely deterministic, can make decisions - based on input and the logic of the program and the data it is fed, it may produce different outputs that, in turn, can affect the world (for example, if the program is inside a robot). Are these not decisions?

On the other hand, if you define a decision as necessarily entailing free will or some element of indeterminism, that's another story. But to me, that would be arguing circularly.

I suggest that a decision occurs anytime processing of information produces an impact on the world. I see no case that decisions cannot occur in a fully deterministic world.

How would you answer this:
Is there a difference between a spontaneous response, and a deliberate response?
For example, we know that some action is reflex action, where your subconscious makes a decision before you consciously do.

For example, some people may let out a cuss word, at a moment, when it was not their intention, nor desire to do so.
Is there a difference between cursing unintentionally, and intentionally cursing, and would you say none of them are done by will, and freedom?

 

[CoreyD]

If i understand you correctly, i agree to an extent.

As a Christian from what i know of freewill, or the ability to choose, before conversion, is an illusion ... But i can elaborate more on your thoughts because i think we are kinda on the same page there. And excuse me if I'm not fully understanding you. I feel like I'm struggling in French class all over again.

Merci Beaucoup.

The apostle Paul covers this in the book of Romans, chapter 7:

14 So the trouble is not with the law, for it is spiritual and good. The trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin. 15 I don’t really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I don’t do it. Instead, I do what I hate. 16 But if I know that what I am doing is wrong, this shows that I agree that the law is good. 17 So I am not the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.

18 And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[d] I want to do what is right, but I can’t. 19 I want to do what is good, but I don’t. I don’t want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway. 20 But if I do what I don’t want to do, I am not really the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.

21 I have discovered this principle of life—that when I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong. 22 I love God’s law with all my heart. 23 But there is another power[e] within me that is at war with my mind. This power makes me a slave to the sin that is still within me. 24 Oh, what a miserable person I am! Who will free me from this life that is dominated by sin and death? 25 Thank God! The answer is in Jesus Christ our Lord. So you see how it is: In my mind I really want to obey God’s law, but because of my sinful nature I am a slave to sin.
---------
In this chapter, and elsewhere in the book, Paul is speaking of the ineffectiveness of the law to change us because of spiritual properties at work. These spiritual properties are greater than our knowledge of good and evil and wanting to choose good over evil. This is the state of man before faith in Christ. More to it that i can go into later, but yes, prior faith the ability to choose is illusionary. The point of bringing choice in, and the law, was never to redeem us, but to show us our inability of our own.

As i like to tell others, you can test it. Life itself confirms these things.

Like i used to smoke. I tried to quit, but i just kept going back to it because knowing it wasn't good for me and just telling myself not to smoke just made the desire for a cigarette even greater. This is how partaking if the knowledge of good and evil works, or the law. It doesn't change you within; doesn't change the spiritual property at work. In other words, it doesn't change the heart.

It was brought in as a temporary measure to show us ourselves apart from the Lord's Spirit, given to those who believe in Father's God's work through Christ. Additionally, it is also like the police, who are representatives of the law. It helps restrain human behavior out of fear of consequences, but has no power to change the heart / spiritual property.

Whether you believe in God or not, it is hard to deny the depth of wisdom in there regarding human nature and properties at work.

So i would say that prior to faith, you premise is correct. I don't necessarily believe that is the case after faith, but not sure how affectively i can debate that because I'm still learning your language.

Can say more on it, but not sure if I'm on the same page regarding your thoughts and takes time to going into it more, so may need to return another day.

I ended up dropping french. Hopefully i can do better here.

Thanks very much for this.
This is a very very good example, and scripture you used.
I think your contribution, though of little value to an atheist, does lay out some good stuff, on the table.
...and your English is good. So is your understanding.

What you are saying is that whether determined by the sinful flesh, which is driven by, or determined by unseen forces of nature, or determined by God's spirit, there are determining factors driving our choices.
Please correct me if I misunderstood you, and I apologize for doing so.

There are just two problems with this meshing with the OP's argument... Well three problems.

1. The influence of holy spirit on an individuals choice, is not an antecedent cause.
2. The influence of holy spirit does not inhibit, nor prohibit free choice (because one can go against the leadings of holy spirit, by free will).
3. Atheists do not acknowledge God, or gods, or spirit.

Nice contribution though.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well it would have to be....otherwise, if one cause can create multiple outcomes, I must be choosing those outcomes.

Huh? I don't follow that reasoning. Most effects cause multiple further effects, and it is usually many effects that cause further single effects. I don't get what you are sayiing.

But more, the fact you are choosing outcomes does not imply lack of causation. --We've already been through this. It is circular reasoning that tries to prove a thesis by the use of that thesis.

Hence, free will.

I'm sorry. That simply does not follow. At least, not according to your apparent definition of free will.

Multiple causes, multiple choices.

Yes. And multiple apparent options from which to choose, but you will choose only the one(s) you choose --none of the others; in fact, it is self-evidently impossible to have chosen the ones you did not choose.

That's why I asked you to list some.

Hypothetical examples are notoriously hard to place into hard logic, particularly when explanations are demanded by the hundreds, but I did show how 300 (if I remember right) differences (via antecedent causes) might be, between what you supposed were 100 otherwise identical bottles of soda in your fridge. Haha!!, I could probably even show how 300 more differences would be if you were to put 100 MORE into your fridge! And if differences, then differences in what caused you to do similar things to all 100! (Or, if I you were to argue that the 100 reasons for why you did it were identical, I could go with that --it is STILL DONE AS A RESULT OF REASONS)

Of course you don't....it's a terrible description of human behavior. It's not worth considering.

The fact that it doesn't qualify degree of morality nor even effectiveness toward further effects is irrelevant to its accuracy. The notion that you can do anything apart from being caused to do precisely whatever you do is at best instinctively derived. The animal sees that it wants, and it wonders why; it concludes, "Because I want.".

You are a result of causes, so what you do is a result of causes.

 

[CoreyD]

Forgot to finish my smoking story.

So the knowledge that smoking wasn't good for me and trying to quit on that knowledge had no power to overcome my desire. Not only that, but just thinking about quitting smoking apart from love just strengthened my unhealthy desires. It doesn't have the power to birth love, but strengthens unhealthy desires in me. I didn't love myself enough to quit for my benefit either.

When i began to live with others i refused to subject them to second hand smoke out of love for them so i smoked outside (although they never forbid smoking inside).

Eventually, i found myself going out there less until i had no desire for it any longer. The Spiritual force of love won out over knowledge because knowledge has no life. It can only uncover the unhealthy desires that arise in me when i am not in love.

Sometimes i still buy a pack. Maybe once a year with the intent of smoking a few cigs. I can't get past two as i find myself wondering what i ever found in them.

This is a simple example of knowledge verses spiritual properties at work.

As Christians these properties, or spiritual forces, are seen as God's love gifted in Christ, by grace through faith, versus lust rooted in the self life; lust as the result of going at it apart from God.

How's my bilingual?

Hey, thanks again.
I just want to point out that the Bible says at Galatians 5:22, 23, that there are certain aspects of the fruit of God's spirit, which contrasts with the works of the flesh, described from verse 19.
One of the qualities of the fruit of the spirit is love - that would be love for God, as well as neighbor.

So, to be truly influenced by holy spirit, would one even consider buying a pack of cigs... even once a decade? No.
It is good you are making the effort though. If you keep at it, you will win the fight Paul mentions at Galatians 5:16-18.

16 Now I say, walk by the Spirit, and you won’t be doing what your sinful nature craves / you should not gratify the desires of the flesh / you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.​

17 For the flesh craves what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are opposed to each other, so that you do not do what you want.​

18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.​

Would this not demonstrate that you are making free willed choices to
go against the spirit, and satisfy the fleshly desires
give into the desires of the flesh, which you said dominated your thinking, before

How would you explain the going from point Z to A, but yet still going back to Z?
If one is in between A to Z, say L, but trying to get far away from Z, and reach A, how is it that they are not making free willed choices?
Are their choices being determined by two forces to make one decision? How would that work out?

Please note, that this is not about you, but using your presentation in the discussion.

 

[Mark Quayle]

There are just two problems with this meshing with the OP's argument... Well three problems.

1. The influence of holy spirit on an individuals choice, is not an antecedent cause.

Excuse me??? How not?

1. The influence of holy spirit does not inhibit, nor prohibit free choice (because one can go against the leadings of holy spirit, by free will).

If it is influence, it is causal in some regard or other.

But, it is quite a bit deeper than that. The Holy Spirit changes the nature of some, from bondage to passions and desires, to the ability to choose according to morality and further "promptings" (shall we say). Yet, even that ability is still going to play out according to what the believer prefers at whatever moment (s)he makes that choice.

1. Atheists do not acknowledge God, or gods, or spirit.

But they do generally understand sequence of causation, and the principle of causality, back to a necessary logical "turtles all the way down" or "mechanical first cause" or even "sentient first cause" (that they insist is not what we call God).

 

[Mark Quayle]

How would you answer this:
Is there a difference between a spontaneous response, and a deliberate response?
For example, we know that some action is reflex action, where your subconscious makes a decision before you consciously do.

For example, some people may let out a cuss word, at a moment, when it was not their intention, nor desire to do so.
Is there a difference between cursing unintentionally, and intentionally cursing, and would you say none of them are done by will, and freedom?

It seems to me your uses of 'freedom' and 'will', here, are intended to imply things they do not.

Also, the fact that a thing may be considered non-deliberate doesn't imply that it is spontaneous, unless that term is imprecisely used. If something is not my deliberate action, it doesn't imply that it happens spontaneously, though it may seem so from my point of view.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Free will is not defined based on a philosophical view, or doctrine.
Free will is the ability to make choices, regardless of the determining factors... whether past, present, or future.

Then you and @Bradskii need to agree on a mutually understood meaning over which to debate. Its a shame when the debate goes on and on because there is no mutually agreeable terminology.

But can you not see how even that statement you made there, "Free will is the ability to make choices, regardless of the determining factors... whether past, present, or future.", does nothing to imply that there are no determining factors? If they are determining factors, they are determining. Now, if it had said, "[supposed] determining factors", you might have a statement from which to debate.

 

[CoreyD]

What it does is all we are interested in. Not how it works. It selects the option that you prefer. I'm going to have to give you the definition of free will again. From Brittanica:

'free will, in philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe.'

So whatever you propose, if it doesn't 'make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe' then it ain't free will. If it does, you can give me an example.

Free will in the Bible is not the same as free will, in philosophy and science.
Free will involves doing things - not under compulsion, but willingly, from the heart - one's desires.
2 Corinthians 9:7
Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

At Hoses 14:4, the Hebrew word nedabah- Freewill offering, voluntary offering, willing gift. is used.
I will heal their apostasy; I will freely love them, for My anger has turned away from them.

Since this is not the subject being discussed here (as the Bible is unimportant to the OP), but rather a philosophical concept that is defined by a philosophical worldview, I can see why the OP thinks it does not exist.
After all, it's only in the mind of the philosophical thinkers.

 

[CoreyD]

It seems to me your uses of 'freedom' and 'will', here, are intended to imply things they do not.

Also, the fact that a thing may be considered non-deliberate doesn't imply that it is spontaneous, unless that term is imprecisely used. If something is not my deliberate action, it doesn't imply that it happens spontaneously, though it may seem so from my point of view.

Did I use a wrong word?
Spontaneous

Arising from a natural inclination or impulse and not from forethought or prompting​

It's not deliberate, if it is spontaneous.
Did you understand the question?
It does not appear you did.

 

[CoreyD]

Then you and @Bradskii need to agree on a mutually understood meaning over which to debate. Its a shame when the debate goes on and on because there is no mutually agreeable terminology.

But can you not see how even that statement you made there, "Free will is the ability to make choices, regardless of the determining factors... whether past, present, or future.", does nothing to imply that there are no determining factors? If they are determining factors, they are determining. Now, if it had said, "[supposed] determining factors", you might have a statement from which to debate.

That's what I was saying, but that was cleared up, in this post. Thanks.
Do you agree with free will, as defined in the Bible?

 

[CoreyD]

Independently of any prior event or state of the universe makes zero sense. Free will proponents don't argue they can defy gravity and jump across continents. Free will proponents don't argue that they aren't required to be alive to make free will choices.

Free will and moral responsibility | Definition, Theories, & Facts | Britannica

Free will and moral responsibility, also called problem of moral responsibility, the problem of reconciling moral responsibility with the apparent fact that humans do not have free will because their actions are causally determined. It is an ancient and enduring philosophical puzzle.

www.britannica.com

This is why every determinist looks like they don't actually believe in free will. There's no version of moral responsibility that doesn't require free will....and every time you complain people are being stubborn because they disagree, you're acknowledging that you fundamentally believe they have the free will to choose and judging them as if they do....beliefs that should be absent in any true/honest determinist.

You nailed it.

 

[Jo555]

Thanks very much for this.
This is a very very good example, and scripture you used.
I think your contribution, though of little value to an atheist, does lay out some good stuff, on the table.
...and your English is good. So is your understanding.

What you are saying is that whether determined by the sinful flesh, which is driven by, or determined by unseen forces of nature, or determined by God's spirit, there are determining factors driving our choices.
Please correct me if I misunderstood you, and I apologize for doing so.

There are just two problems with this meshing with the OP's argument... Well three problems.

1. The influence of holy spirit on an individuals choice, is not an antecedent cause.
2. The influence of holy spirit does not inhibit, nor prohibit free choice (because one can go against the leadings of holy spirit, by free will).
3. Atheists do not acknowledge God, or gods, or spirit.

Nice contribution though.

I understand i am speaking to atheists, but just like they are coming from their perspective, i am doing the same and thought they knew that, but in case, it's great to bring it up again.

From an atheist point of reference, it may help to substitute heart for Holy Spirit. A Christian believes the heart, as in what we love, not the biological heart, is a spiritual force.

I agree with 2 and 3. Although i believe that one doesn't not necessarily have a choice prior to faith and receiving the Holy Spirit. But, when God comes calling, one can open or harden the heart.

The knowledge of good and evil affects the heart, but it is just knowledge that influences the conscience, which affects the heart as in love or fear.

Not sure on 1 as i need time to process what you are saying and short on time now.

Truth to me is what God has revealed to me through his Spirit, Word, and life because his creation, including spiritual properties, speaks of Him. I believe atheist can learn a lot about God by studying creation and its properties, although they may not recognize him as such.

Romans 1 speaks of this, regarding how no one will have an excuse because his creation and its properties that testify to his existence, but some will refuse to acknowledge him therefore he will give them over to depravity and their lusts.

I don't believe if i an a believer and they are atheist that we can't see similar things, even if we may not agree on all of it.

I don't fear science and other forms of studying the spiritual laws at work because i believe the more they come to the truth in that regard, the more it will testify to the existence of God.