The Problem of Evil

[Immanuel Can]

They're not, in fact, predetermined. They only want to imagine they are. And I am no determinist.

So you've epistemically determined that determinism is not factually/ontologically true?

How?

When a belief cannot even remain consistent with itself, it is false: it is, as we say, "self-refuting," or "self-contradictory." It is objectively irrational.

Look, it's entirely possible that we are all Determinists.

No, it's not. Only if every person in the world believed in Determinism would we all be "Determinists." But are we predetermined? That's a different question altogether. We could believe were were (i.e. we could all "be Determinists") and all be entirely wrong ontologically.

You're still confused the same way. You don't seem to grasp that a person believing in Determinism doesn't make Determinism true. In other words, the difference between the ontological and the epistemological.

I'm not a Determinist.

You could be wrong about that...

No. Since Determinism is merely epistemic, I would have to know I was.

[Skepdick]

When a belief cannot even remain consistent with itself, it is false: it is, as we say, "self-refuting," or "self-contradictory." It is objectively irrational.

All of this is moot. If I am a Determinist; and I am irrational, then it's entirely outside of my control to be rational.

No, it's not. Only if every person in the world believed in Determinism would we all be "Determinists." But are we predetermined? That's a different question altogether. We could believe were were (i.e. we could all "be Determinists") and all be entirely wrong ontologically.

Why are you talking about anyone's beliefs when all along you've been insisting that Determinism is about ontology?

You're still confused the same way.

One of us is definitely confused. And it's not me.

You don't seem to grasp that a person believing in Determinism doesn't make Determinism true

I grasp that very well. I also grasp that believing in determinism doesn't make one a Determinist (ontologically).

Your usual attempt to muddy the water is being skilfully managed. Try again.

In other words, the difference between the ontological and the epistemological.

Yes. I know - it's my distinction.

No. Since Determinism is merely epistemic, I would have to know I was.

You are the one who insisted that it has nothing to do with knowledge, snowflake - so I am trying to have the debate on your terms.

Do you need me to remind you?

It won't change whether or not they are, in fact, predetermined. Their knowledge, for better or worse, is not a prerequisite of ontological determination. That's an ontologically-defined situation, not an epistemologically-defined one.

So let me help you out.

If you are claiming that you are not a Determinist (in the ontological sense), then you must have determined that (in the epistemic sense).

How did you do that?

[Immanuel Can]

All of this is moot.

Well, that's the most precise statement you've made. I agree. Either you're willfully trying to be contrary or you just don't understand the concepts involved. Either way, trying to discuss further is obviously moot.

On the upside, if you're actually genuinely confused, you can always go back and re-read until you understand.

[Skepdick]

Well, that's the most precise statement you've made. I agree. Either you're willfully trying to be contrary or you just don't understand the concepts involved. Either way, trying to discuss further is obviously moot.

False dichotomy.

There's at least one more option. YOU are willfully trying to be contrary or you just don't understand the concepts involved.

From where I am looking, that's the most likely one, seeming as you can't answer a simple question.

How have you determined that you are not a Determinist?

On the upside, if you're actually genuinely confused, you can always go back and re-read until you understand.

On the downside, it's precisely reading your words is what caused my confusion.

[Immanuel Can]

You keep insisting that you are a not a Determinist, but you can't explain how you've determined that.

Look up "ontology." Then look up "epistemology." I can point you to it; I can't understand it for you.

[Skepdick]

Look up "ontology." Then look up "epistemology." I can point you to it; I can't understand it for you.

You don't have to understand it for me, but you sure have to understand it for yourself.

I thought I made it perfectly clear in the very first post. Perhaps you should re-read it?

Here...

Not possible. You've misunderstood what Determinism means. The whole implication of Determinism is that nothing can exist outside of its control. Otherwise, it's not Determinism: it's only the very routine position that some things are in our control and some are not...which nobody but Determinists would deny.

You are conflating epistemic and ontological determinism.

To be an epistemic determinist is to be able to determine whether the universe is ontologically deterministic or non-deterministic.

To be an epistemic non-determinist is to insist that you can't determine whether the ontological universe is deterministic or non-deterministic.

[Immanuel Can]

Look up "ontology." Then look up "epistemology." I can point you to it; I can't understand it for you.

You don't have to understand it for me, but you sure have to understand it for yourself.

I'm doing fine. Keep working on it.

[Skepdick]

I'm doing fine.

Fine isn't good enough...

If you stopped conflating epistemic and ontological determinism you'd do even better.

Keep working on it.

There's nothing for me to do here other than point out your error.

[Immanuel Can]

If you stopped conflating epistemic and ontological determinism you'd do even better.

I never did that. You did, on several occasions.

Why am I feeling like talking to you is about as profitable as "The Argument Clinic" Monty Python sketch?

[Skepdick]

I never did that. You did, on several occasions.

You are projecting...

Why am I feeling like talking to you is about as profitable as "The Argument Clinic" Monty Python sketch?

Probably because you like being corrected.

[Immanuel Can]

Probably because you like being corrected.

Hmm...

Well, I'm reminded of a line from the old movie Gorky Park:

"I somehow feel that [your adversary]...whoever he may be, would have preferred somebody...a more, um...nimble opponent."

I shall take my leave of you, and not feel myself at all deprived.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can, what I would really like you to confirm, if you would, is whether or not God determined each and every event , so that each and every event could not be otherwise than it was/is/will be.