Only two supreme ideas have the spiritual clout to serve in the conscious mind as the foundation for moral decision-making by humanity:

1) God is all thing-serving as the moral foundation for the Kingdom of God.

2) God is not all things-serving as the moral foundation of this present world.

At first glance, it is tempting to argue that these concepts overlap, or that the logical law of the excluded middle does not apply to such vast metaphysical claims. However, closer examination reveals that these two frameworks are structurally incommensurable. Given that their foundational premises are completely inverted, they remain strictly mutually exclusive and isolated.

To understand why these frameworks cannot coexist, one must look past any identical conclusions they reach and focus on the distinct paths they take. For instance, thinkers in both systems might agree that the universe is not a meaningless cosmic fluke. Yet, unless an individual fully embraces the premise that God is all things, they inherently accept the premise that God is not all things. Consequently, they utilize two entirely different logical paths to arrive at the shared conclusion.

They do not share a foundational link; they merely share a destination. Given that the mechanical logic explaining why the universe has meaning is completely reversed between the two, they remain structurally separate.

This mutually exclusive isolation regarding these two supreme ideas is best understood through a painting analogy. Consider two art critics examining a beautiful canvas. Critic A adopts the typical monistic approach, believing the canvas itself is a living, breathing, conscious entity that naturally grew into beautiful patterns. Critic B chooses a traditional atheistic approach, believing the canvas is a spiritually dead, physical object painted by an incredibly talented artist who has since walked away. Despite their vast differences, both critics agree perfectly on the conclusion: "This canvas is not a meaningless, accidental spill of paint."

However, this shared agreement does not negate the fact that their systems of thought remain mutually exclusive. A closer examination reveals that the underlying theories of reality supporting these two perspectives are fundamentally opposed; their arguments share no logical overlap. Empirically, no middle ground or hybrid can bridge them: if Critic A is right about the fundamental nature of the canvas, Critic B is completely wrong.

The concept of universal causality establishes a deterministic universe, with God serving as the Primary or First Cause. This framework directly supports the premise that God is all things. Throughout history, prominent thinkers have acknowledged this worldview. The 17th-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza famously argued for Deus sive Natura (God or Nature), asserting that the universe and God are one identical substance. In the 20th century, Albert Einstein famously stated that he believed in "Spinoza's God"—a deity revealed in the orderly harmony of what exists.

Despite the philosophical validity of both worldviews, the majority of the world remains content to live in a society governed by the opposing framework: that God is not all things. Why does humanity default to this latter perspective without giving equal consideration to the premise that the Primary Cause is all things? The answer likely lies in our deep-seated need to preserve the concept of free will.

It is possible that humanity defaults to the idea that "God is not all things" precisely because traditional philosophy and theology have struggled to explain how individual moral responsibility can operate if God is everything. if the latter is true, the universe becomes fully deterministic. Under this framework, the Primary Cause serves as the ultimate source of every human action, rendering free will a mere illusion.                                                                                                                             To preserve the concepts of choice, guilt, and justice, all of which rely on a person possessing free will, human societies have gravitated toward the moral framework incorporating the idea that the Primary Cause is not all things. This worldview provides humanity with a necessary platform for accepting free will and personal responsibility.                                                                                      

Compatibilism and Incompatibilism

Determinism is the foundational premise that every event, including human actions, is completely caused by preceding events and natural laws [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism]. The foundational tension is over what this means for human freedom. Consequently, the modern debate centers less on a simple choice between determinism and free will, and more on the divide between compatibilism—the belief that determinism and free will can coexist—and incompatibilism, the belief that they cannot.                                                                          

The debate hinges on how one defines "free will." The incompatibilists argue that if the universe is deterministic, you could never have chosen otherwise than you did. True free will requires the ability to do otherwise. Therefore, if determinism is true, free will is an illusion, and moral responsibility is impossible. Compatibilists argue that free will does not require an uncaused choice. It only requires that your actions flow from your own internal thoughts, desires, and motivations without external force (coercion). This remains true even if those internal traits were determined by prior events involving cause and effect.                                              

In societies, operating from a framework of a free will based on inner thoughts, desires and motivations, people assume that a individual’s internal desires and rational thinking guide their behavior in the choices they make. This assumption holds them solely responsible for their actions, regardless of past life causes. Punishments and fines work as physical causes that deter future illegal acts by altering                 a person’s future choices. Everyday reactions like praise, anger, gratitude, and blame function naturally because people treat each other as intentional agents, separate from the Primary Cause, or God.

Compatibilists admit that the internal thoughts, desires, and motivations driving human behavior are themselves the products of ancestral causal chains. Critically, this means their definition of freedom is not a primary or authentic free will from a universal perspective. Instead, it is best classified as a Simulated or Secondary Free Will, as it fails to dismantle the evidence that prior causes ultimately dictates the final choice. The logic remains absolute: If A causes B, and B causes C, then, A inevitably causes C.

Simulated Free Will versa Primary Free

The framework of Simulated Free Will versa Primary Free Will suggests that authentic agency is achievable, but only exclusively through direct communication with the Primary Cause. To enter this direct communication with the Primary Cause, law of causality implies that an individual must transcend their independent identity and become as one with God.

To effectively deny your existence, you must first recognize that the “you” that you think you are is an illusion. A bird metaphor illustrates this point clearly. If a bird did not construct your physical body, did not form your conscious mind, and did not generate any idea within that mind, then, how can it truly claim possession of—or even be considered a part of—your existence?                                                                                         

Now, substitute the bird with the very “you” that you think you are. If the “you” that you think you are did not construct your physical body, did not create your conscious mind, did not generate any idea in that mind, then, how can it truly claim possession of, or even be considered a part of, your existence? How can the “you” that you think you are be anything if God is everything?

Once you understand that the perceived self does not exist—and never has—you realize that only the spirit of the Primary Cause exists. This renders the “you” that you think you are an illusion or nothingness. When you understand that only the spirit of God exists, and when it is understood that this divine spirit has been existing as the “you” that you think you are all along, then the illusion or nothingness represented by that perceived self becomes something, ex-nihilo: it becomes a spiritually living part of the spirit of God.

If a person is an extension of God within a deterministic universe, their choices are ultimately bound by causality. Therefore, the outside world must conclude that God caused the individual to make the choices that they make because in a deterministic universe, the Primary Cause is everything.

Yet, the individual cannot blame the Primary Cause for their choice. Before recognizing that God is all things, the individual lacks spiritual reality—existing only as an illusion, an erroneous idea born of the conscious mind. However, embracing divine omnipresence transforms this illusion, granting the enlightened person Authentic Spiritual Life and its inherent Authentic Free Will. By virtue of this freedom, the individual can experience a profound sense of realness and spiritual validity, despite living in a deterministic universe. However, with this freedom, the individual cannot escape divine accountability. Existing as one with God, being held accountable to God is the same as being held accountable to oneself, or vice versa.

Even though the enlightened individual is granted Authentic Free Will, this agency exists exclusively within their communion with God. Externally, because the individual remains an extension of the deterministic universe, the world must still view their choices as bound by causality and authored by the Primary Cause. Yet, in the immediacy of divine communication, God opens a metaphysical space that accommodates  Authentic Free Will, assuring that individual has authentic participation in the deterministic universe. 

Divine communication with the Primary Cause bridges the gap between determinism and free will. By allowing a person to possess Genuine Spiritual Life and its inherent Authentic Free Will while remaining in an a deterministic universe, God grants them not just a secondary free will based solely on inner thoughts, desires, and motivations, but a Primary, Authentic Free Will based on the perceived will of the Primary Cause. Thus, authentic freedom can exist in a truly deterministic universe; but it functions                             exclusively within direct communication between an individual and God.                                                                                                                                                                 

The determinism and free will dilemma remains to be debated in scientific, philosophical, and theological communities, sparking rigorous interest and tension. The Simulated Free Will versus Primary Free Will concept provided here illustrates how a mental bridge can permit an individual to become one with God. Existing as one with the Primary Cause, the person inherently adopts Primary “Authentic” Free Will. Thus, this concept further demonstrates how people as individuals can possess Primary, Authentic Free Will in a deterministic universe.

 

This Simulated Free Will versus Primary Free Will framework demonstrates that an individual can possess Primary “Authentic” Free Will in a deterministic universe but only when in a direct communication with God. The concept provided here, which argues that free will can exist in a deterministic universe, but only when a person is in communication with the Primary Cause, or God, offers the truth about free will based on empirical facts.

Anyone can sign their name to the Great Census, but until you have accepted the idea that God is all things and have gone through the denying of the perceived-self process you cannot be absolutely sure that you will actually enter into the Kingdom of God.