The Argument from Equality begins with the premise that if determinism is true, then our actions are entirely determined by prior causes. This means that everything we do is the result of a chain of events that was set in motion before we were even born.

The Argument from Equality concludes that if determinism is true, then free will is incompatible with determinism. This is because if our actions are entirely determined by prior causes, then we cannot be held morally responsible for them. And if we cannot be held morally responsible for our actions, then we cannot be said to have free will.

The main objection to the Argument from Equality is that it relies on a false dichotomy. The argument presents a choice between determinism and free will, as if these are the only two options. However, there are other possibilities, such as compatibilism, which holds that determinism and free will are not necessarily incompatible.

Compatibilism is the view that determinism and free will are compatible. Compatibilists argue that even if our actions are determined by prior causes, we can still be held morally responsible for them if we have the ability to choose between different courses of action.

The main argument in favor of compatibilism is the argument from alternative possibilities. This argument states that even if our actions are determined by prior causes, we still have the ability to choose between different courses of action. This is because there are always multiple possible courses of action that we could take in any given situation.

The main argument against compatibilism is the argument from determinism. This argument states that if determinism is true, then we cannot have the ability to choose between different courses of action. This is because our choices would be determined by prior causes, and therefore we would not be free to choose otherwise.

Libertarianism is the view that free will is incompatible with determinism. Libertarians argue that we have the ability to choose between different courses of action, even if our choices are not determined by prior causes.

The main argument in favor of libertarianism is the argument from consciousness. This argument states that our consciousness gives us the ability to choose between different courses of action, even if our choices are not determined by prior causes.

The main argument against libertarianism is the argument from determinism. This argument states that if determinism is true, then we cannot have the ability to choose between different courses of action. This is because our choices would be determined by prior causes, and therefore we would not be free to choose otherwise.

Compatibilism is not a type of determinism because it does not hold that our actions are entirely determined by prior causes. Compatibilists argue that even if our actions are determined by prior causes, we can still be held morally responsible for them if we have the ability to choose between different courses of action.

Compatibilism is not a type of libertarianism because it does not hold that our actions are entirely free from prior causes. Compatibilists argue that even if our actions are determined by prior causes, we can still be held morally responsible for them if we have the ability to choose between different courses of action.

Hard determinism is not a type of compatibilism because it holds that our actions are entirely determined by prior causes. Compatibilists argue that even if our actions are determined by prior causes, we can still be held morally responsible for them if we have the ability to choose between different courses of action.

Causal determinism is not a type of agent causation because it does not hold that our actions are caused by our own mental states. Agent causation holds that our actions are caused by our own mental states, such as our beliefs, desires, and intentions.

Compatibilism is not a type of divine causation because it does not hold that our actions are caused by God. Divine causation holds that our actions are caused by God.

Logical possibilities are not a type of alternative possibilities because they are not possibilities that could actually occur. Logical possibilities are possibilities that are logically consistent, but they may not be physically possible or metaphysically possible.