The whole alleged empirical evidence for spiritual causes is gone, because neither the will nor the motive nor the I is a cause, and these three inner facts were that evidence

The passage

The will moves nothing, the motive is not among the antecedents of a deed but something alongside it, and the I has become a fiction that neither thinks nor feels nor wills; since these three inner facts were the whole alleged empirical evidence for spiritual causes, that evidence is gone.

The argument

1. P1The will is one of the phantoms of the inner world: it moves nothing, consequently explains nothing, and can be absent
2. P2The so-called motive is another error: a surface phenomenon of consciousness that conceals rather than represents the antecedents of a deed
3. P3The I has become a fable, a fiction, a play on words; it has ceased to think, feel and will
4. P4Assumption. If there is empirical evidence for spiritual causes, then the will is a cause, or the motive is, or the I is (the map's bridge: the section's »diesen drei inneren Thatsachen, mit denen sich die Ursächlichkeit zu verbürgen schien« and »die ganze angebliche Empirie dafür«, read as making the three the whole of the alleged evidence)
5. Infer.modus tollens on a disjunction
6. CThe whole alleged empirical evidence for spiritual causes has gone to the devil

The argument is the second half of »Die vier grossen Irrthümer« 3, from »Inzwischen haben wir uns besser besonnen« to »Was folgt daraus? Es giebt gar keine geistigen Ursachen! Die ganze angebliche Empirie dafür gieng zum Teufel! Das folgt daraus!«

What the form captures and what it leaves out. Premises 1 to 3 are the three denials the section makes in turn, of the will (»bewegt nichts mehr«), the motive (»ein andrer Irrthum. Bloss ein Oberflächenphänomen des Bewusstseins, ein Nebenher der That«) and the I (»hat ganz und gar aufgehört, zu denken, zu fühlen und zu wollen«). The atoms gloss each as "is a cause" in the sense the section's first half gives it: the will as what moves, the motive as one of the »antecedentia einer Handlung, ihre Ursachen« which were to be sought in consciousness, and the I as what thinks, feels and wills; premise 2 rests on »Nebenher der That«, something alongside the deed and so not among its antecedents, and not on the comparative »eher ... verdeckt, als dass es sie darstellt«, which denies nothing outright. A reader who holds that "the will moves nothing" leaves it open whether the will is a cause in some other sense may dispute the gloss. Premise 4 is the map's bridge and is epistemic, as the text's own step is: the section's first half says the belief in causality was taken from »diesen drei "inneren Thatsachen"« (c-nietzsche-belief-in-causation-from-inner-facts), and the conclusion's second sentence calls the three »die ganze angebliche Empirie dafür«; the map reads the two together as saying that the evidence for spiritual causes, if there is any, is one of the three. The form therefore reaches »Die ganze angebliche Empirie dafür gieng zum Teufel« and not »Es giebt gar keine geistigen Ursachen«: the step from no evidence to none existing is Nietzsche's, in the same breath, and the map records it as a claim→claim dependency it has not formalized (c-nietzsche-no-spiritual-causes). The form does not cover the »folglich« inside premise 1 (moves nothing, hence explains nothing), nor the sentences after the conclusion on the world »daraufhin geschaffen«, which are not quoted. On the reading r-nietzsche-will-to-power-not-asserted premise 1 denies the antecedent of JGB 36's conditional (c-nietzsche-will-causality-posited-as-the-only); the other reading takes GD's denial to concern the will as an inner faculty only.