Christianity

[Age]

Yes, my past behaviour did leave a lot of room for improvement, didn't it?

Actually, Nick, it is to your credit that you are prepared to have anything to do with me.

Old Russian saying: "All things blow over in time" All that matters is how you are now.

Harbal, I think you've been brilliant every step of the way. So funny and thoughtful. Lately you've seemed more patient (?) perhaps. But that doesn't diminish the appropriateness of your past sarcasm, which has been hilarious. We all have many ways of expression available all the time, I think -- along with phases or shifts we might go through. I think it's all good, as it bounces off of each other for the betterment of all. My perspective is that we're already one with the source and we're just playing things out on this stage because it's creative and entertaining.

OF COURSE ALL of 'us' are ALREADY with thee one and ONLY One, or Source, as some prefer to call 'It'. 'we' could NOT be ANY other way. But SOME of 'us' AT LEAST are OPEN to LOOKING FOR and SEEING MORE, than just continually RE-REPEATING what they BELIEVE or DISBELIEVE is true.

'you', "lacewing", although LOVE to BELIEVE that it is 'you' who is NOT the CLOSED one here is ACTUALLY just as CLOSED as those who FOLLOW and BELIEVE IN 'one religion'. Your 'one religion' just OPPOSES 'other religions', EXACTLY LIKE ALL 'religions' OPPOSE 'other religions' in one way or another.

'We' ARE just 'playing things out', on a stage, and part of 'the play' WAS 'acting out' 'roles' UNTIL 'we' COME to KNOW thy (Real and True) Self. So, that eventually 'we' can LIVE and PLAY, TOGETHER, in Peace and in Harmony, as One.

So, there may be as MANY 'ways' to get to KNOW thy Self, as there 'you', human beings, BUT, and contrary to what 'you' BELIEVE is true "lacewing" there is only ONE KNOWN WAY to get to KNOW thee True Self.

And, 'that way' is OPEN for DISCUSSION, that is; for those who are NOT YET COMPLETELY CLOSED OFF to 'that way'.

[Harbal]

I don't believe Determinism is true at all, so I don't believe the above. But Belinda is going to have to, if she hopes to remain consistent with her Determinism.

Isn't it up to Belinda to determine what exactly she believes? Why should she be limited to the choices you want to impose on her?

Oh, I'm not. Rationality is.

It's up to rationality to identify what makes sense in view of what one has already declared one believes. If one says, "I'm a Determinist," then that position comes with certain rational corollaries that one simply cannot escape.

One thing is that you also have to believe that "choice" is utterly impossible, "volition" doesn't exist, "human agency" is a myth, and there is no causal power in human "will."

Other things that fit Determinism is that whatever happens is the only thing that ever could have happened, that there's no such thing as what you "ought" to have done (hence, no morality), and that whatever is, is good...or at least, is not morally bad.

You also have to accept that no human bears any responsibility, because they have no response-ability (meaning, no "ability" to "respond"). And you have to think that we're all just pointlessly playing out the very singular program of strict cause-and-effect that was really predetermined for us the very second this show we call "existence" began.

All absurd things to believe, I agree. But once one has declared oneself a Determinist, they all follow as surely as dawn follows dark.

Unless Belinda, or anyone else, says exactly what they believe, how can you possibly know what they do believe? You can't just pin one word (determinist) on someone and claim to know the entirety of what they believe.

[Age]

That is probably how most of us come to have most of our ideas. That's fine, but I'm more cautious when it comes to following. I have a limited knowledge of the great thinkers, but one thing I have noticed is that even those with the most brilliant ideas often seem to come up with the occasional clanger, so I tend to be more of a cherry picker when it comes to ideas.

Well, B.'s channelling a kind of Determinism there. "All my ideas come from others," she says. Well, where do "others" ideas come from? Still "others"? Where do the original ideas come from, then? At some point, we have to think somebody thought of something for the first time. Not everybody is a follower. Not everbody even can be. Somebody had to come first.

Additionally, of course, we have to observe that people often change their minds. Somebody raised in a Muslim country entirely, like Ayan Hirsi Ali, becomes an Atheist. How is that even possible, if "all [her] ideas come from [the] 'others' [around her]"?

So I think that's lazy thinking. Sure one can see oneself, believe oneself, and treat oneself as if one is nothing more than a product of the choices of others. But that's also a choice...a choice to be irresponsible, unthinking, lazy or influenceable. And one could choose otherwise.

Well even those who don't believe in free will still have to live as if they have it.

Right. Which is one of the things that shows us that Determinism is false. If it were the truth, it would be impossible to live any other way but Deterministically. But in point of fact, it's living Deterministically that turns out to be impossible, and living as if choice exists that is unavoidable. How would such a situation even happen, if the world itself were strictly Deterministic?

But this "trained philosopher" got Sartre wrong, I would say. Sartre said we are "condemned to be free." Those are his words. And he means that the one thing about which we have no choice at all is whether or not to make choices. Even the choice to make no thoughtful, reflective decisions ourselves, and merely to trust in and coast on whatever "others" tell us is, itself, a choice. One has simply chosen not to take responsibility for oneself. And one is, in Sartre's view, not fully human until one steps up and makes one's choices deliberate for oneself. That's what he means when he says, "existence precedes essence." (His words, again.) It means you're not fully alive, not being what a human being really is, if all the time, you're lateralling your choices to "others."

So choices are, again, inevitable. And Determinism is false.

I am a determinist, Immanuel, in the sense that every event was, is, and shall be a necessary event, world without end ,Amen.

So, "belinda" 'you' can NOT CHOOSE to do good NOR right 'things' and can ONLY do what 'you' do NO MATTER how bad OR wrong they are, correct?

For example, 'you' have absolutely NO CHOICE whether to abuse a child or not, and can ONLY do what 'you' do to them even if it is ABUSE, correct?

The "somebody" that has to "come first" did not come first in time, but is the ever present ground of being, which you call God and I call Nature.

You are correct about Sartre's existentialism.This is why I who am a determinist have to live as if am free to choose and take responsibility for my decisions. After all, determinism does not imply that I know the causes everything. Far from it! What this means for me in everyday life is I choose and take responsibility for my choices but try to understand that people who don't think like me are caused to think otherwise than I. If someone else's belief seems to me to be immoral or incorrect I will say so without blaming the person for holding their wrong belief. This is hard to do in the case of someone whose action is the immediate cause of mega suffering, but in conscience is what we all ought to do.

Let me get this straight "belinda" are 'you' FREE to make CHOICES or are 'you' NOT?

If you are FREE to make CHOICES, then HOW can 'you' ALSO BELIEVE that there is ONLY a 'deterministic world/Universe'?

I don't worship the sort of deity who punishes people as if they themselves originate bad beliefs.

But there is NO 'Deity' that PUNISHES people for what they do. ONLY 'you', human beings, PUNISH people for what they do.

However, in saying that, if 'you', people, keep doing the Wrong 'things' in Life, then by your very OWN actions/behaviours 'you' will be NATURALLY PUNISHED by God, or Nature, or whatever 'you' want to call that 'Thing', which BALANCES ALL-OF-THIS out.

When a man knows exactly what suffering he causes and persists in his behaviour a determinist will sort of be like "Sorry but your behaviour and lack of contrition is too dangerous for us to tolerate so we must lock you up . We will try to make prison as pleasant as possible but we cannot allow you to be a free man."

There are TO MANY INCONSISTENCIES and CONTRADICTIONS here to work through and REVEAL. BUT, if ANY one is Truly INTERESTED, then I WILL, FOR SURE.

[Age]

Well, B.'s channelling a kind of Determinism there. "All my ideas come from others," she says. Well, where do "others" ideas come from? Still "others"? Where do the original ideas come from, then? At some point, we have to think somebody thought of something for the first time. Not everybody is a follower. Not everbody even can be. Somebody had to come first.

I am a determinist, Immanuel, in the sense that every event was, is, and shall be a necessary event, world without end ,Amen.

The "somebody" that has to "come first" did not come first in time, but is the ever present ground of being, which you call God and I call Nature.

Well, let's see how that explanation would go.

In the beginning was Nature, and Nature taught the first person the "idea" that he/she would launch out, that "others" would also pass on, and Belinda would eventually believe...

How did "Nature" teach this alleged "first person" the "idea" that he/she was going to become the conduit of? Tell me the specifics of that.

Are you an IDIOT "immanuel can". One could just replace the 'Nature' word with the 'God' word here, or ANY other word for that matter, propose what you have here, and then ask you the EXACT SAME question. And, what would 'your' answer be "immanuel can"?

You are correct about Sartre's existentialism.This is why I who am a determinist have to live as if am free to choose and take responsibility for my decisions. After all, determinism does not imply that I know the causes everything. Far from it!

Nobody suggested otherwise. What you do or do not know is, under Determinism, utterly irrelevant. Your "knowing" doesn't change any action.

What this means for me in everyday life is I choose...

No, it means you do not "choose." Rather, you only are compelled by the chain of cause-and-effect in exactly the only way you ever could be.

...and take responsibility for my choices...

No, you cannot.

For you are not "responsible," and not "response-able" at all. You had no choice. You did not respond. And there is no agency called "you" to have done it. Determinism means that Belinda is a dumb terminal on a chain of cause-and-effect that makes her into whatever she is. Period.

...If someone else's belief seems to me to be immoral or incorrect...

It cannot be. Not ever. It can only be whatever cause-and-effect fated it to be, which is neither wrong nor right, but just IS.

But the one known here as "belinda" can STILL have the BELIEF that someone else's BELIEF seems to "belinda" to be immoral or incorrect, and this is because of what just IS or just HAPPENS in an ONLY 'deterministic world/Universe'.

But what I do NOT understand is HOW "belinda" can BELIEVE that 'it' is A so-called "determinist" BUT ALSO is ABLE to CHOOSE or ABLE to MAKE CHOICES.

What does the 'detminist' word even mean, or refer to, to 'you', "belinda"?

...in conscience is what we all ought to do.

No, there are no "oughts" in Determinism. There are only the "is's". Whatever the pedophile did, that's what he had to do; and it's nonsense, then, to say he "ought not" to have acted like a pedophile. Belinda was predetermined to be a non-pedo. He was predetermined by forces utterly outside his control, the forces of cause-and-effect, to be a pedophile. He never had a choice. And neither did Belinda.

...a determinist will sort of be like "Sorry but your behaviour and lack of contrition is too dangerous for us to tolerate so we must lock you up ."

The Determinist has no right or legitimacy in doing so. He/she only did what he/she could not help doing. And he/she did not choose, believe or act in any way but the way he/she was fated to do.

And there is no such thing as morality, anyway. There is only the almighty "is."

'Morality' CAN and STILL WOULD exist in a 'determined ONLY world/Universe' BECAUSE if 'morality' was PRE-DETERMINED to come-about, then morality WOULD.

What 'you', posters, here do NOT YET FULLY RECOGNIZE and ACCEPT is just HOW MUCH that BOTH 'free will' AND 'determinism' BOTH do ACTUALLY EXIST and play parts in this One and ONLY world/Universe.

[BigMike]

Determinism means being in line with the six conservation laws of physics: energy, linear momentum, angular momentum, electric charge, color charge, and weak isospin.

No, it doesn't actually. It means the metaphysical claim that these things are all that exist, and all that can have any effect so far as causality goes.

Non-determinism also believes in physical laws. It does not at all deny they exist and work, nor does it need to. But non-determinism holds that human beings, their volitions and their choices, are also causal agents, capable of inititating particular effects and actuating alternative outcomes.

But since causing something always means changing something's energy, linear momentum, electric charge, or any of the other conserved quantities, and since the four fundamental forces are the only interactions that exist in the whole universe, and since they only interact with other physical particles or objects, nothing can happen that isn't caused by physical particles or objects. This means, in particular, "that human beings, their volitions and their choices" are not "causal agents, capable of initiating particular effects and actuating alternative outcomes."

[Immanuel Can]

Unless Belinda, or anyone else, says exactly what they believe, how can you possibly know what they do believe?

You can't. But Belinda has told us. "I'm a Determinist," she says.

And if she is, then all the corollaries follow -- unless, of course, she's an irrational Determinist, and believes things that simply contradict one another completely.

I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, that she is rational: and therefore, I am also expecting that she believes everything Determinism entails.

[Immanuel Can]

...nothing can happen that isn't caused by physical particles or objects.

That's a presumption, not a proof.

What makes you think that nothing can happen that isn't caused by strictly physical "particles or objects"? What's your grounds for that confidence?

At this very moment, you're trying to change something metaphysical (my mind) with words conjured up from your own metaphysical entity (your mind). So you are trying to demonstrate the falsehood of Determinism. And you are succeeding in that, even if you don't succeed in convincing me; for your own performance confirms you do not really believe in pure Physicalist Determinism. You think you can change minds, by using ideas.

[Age]

For you are not "responsible," and not "response-able" at all. You had no choice. You did not respond. And there is no agency called "you" to have done it. Determinism means that Belinda is a dumb terminal on a chain of cause-and-effect that makes her into whatever she is. Period.

I can't see the wisdom or the value in being so rigid in your views, but it must work for you somehow. Were you always like that, or did God do it to you?

I think what "immanuel can" is saying that IF ones holds the view/belief that this 'world/Universe' is 'deterministic' ONLY, which would infer that there is NO ability AT ALL to make choices, freely, THEN the view, expressed, would be the only view one could then have.

[Age]

If we accept the priciple of cause and effect, then we can't really avoid the conclusion that the world is deterministic to some extent.

The world may seem deterministic to us who think in terms of cause and effect regarding nearly all events but in nature there is nothing so deterministic as cause and effect.

WHY, supposedly, NOT?

How do 'things' actually work IN NATURE if NOT through 'cause and effect'?

In a sense, to be deterministic, it must already be predetermined that discrete causes produce the expected effects. There isn't a single equation in all physics which incorporates that as a paradigm.

So, if a human being has NOT YET come up with 'an equation', "in all physics" (whatever that means), then 'deterministic' features of the Universe, Itself, such as a predetermined cause will produce an expected effect is NOT even a possibility, correct?

[Age]

For you are not "responsible," and not "response-able" at all. You had no choice. You did not respond. And there is no agency called "you" to have done it. Determinism means that Belinda is a dumb terminal on a chain of cause-and-effect that makes her into whatever she is. Period.

I can't see the wisdom or the value in being so rigid in your views,...

They're not my views. I'm explaining what Determinism implies is the case.

I don't believe Determinism is true at all, so I don't believe the above.

Here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of how BELIEFS, or how NOT BELIEVING some 'thing', is the VERY REASON WHY these people are SO LOST and CONFUSED.

But Belinda is going to have to, if she hopes to remain consistent with her Determinism.

And, "immanuel can" is going to have to, also, if "immanuel can" hopes to remain consistent with 'its' BELIEFS here.

[Age]

I don't believe Determinism is true at all, so I don't believe the above. But Belinda is going to have to, if she hopes to remain consistent with her Determinism.

Isn't it up to Belinda to determine what exactly she believes? Why should she be limited to the choices you want to impose on her?

What we have here is what happens in all of these types of discussions. That is; people put their OWN definitions on words and terms, and then speak as those definitions are the ONLY true, right, and correct ones, and that EVERY one SHOULD use THOSE definitions ALSO. "bigmike" is a GREAT EXAMPLE of another one who does this.

[Age]

I don't believe Determinism is true at all, so I don't believe the above.

Determinism means being in line with the six conservation laws of physics: energy, linear momentum, angular momentum, electric charge, color charge, and weak isospin.

Contrary to what this one BELIEVES is true, other people have and use OTHER definitions for the word and term 'determinism'. And, they CERTAINLY DO NOT define 'determinism' the way "bigmike" does here.

These quantities are conserved since they only "change hands" between particles and objects through four basic interactions, which are gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Conserved quantities are thus never created or destroyed, they just pass around from one thing to another.

Do you mean to say that these basic laws are wrong?

LOL Talk about a PRIME EXAMPLE of TWISTING and DISTORTING "another's" words and views in an ATTEMPT to make them FIT IN with one's OWN VERY PARTICULAR and PECULIAR view of 'things'.

[Age]

I don't believe Determinism is true at all, so I don't believe the above. But Belinda is going to have to, if she hopes to remain consistent with her Determinism.

Isn't it up to Belinda to determine what exactly she believes? Why should she be limited to the choices you want to impose on her?

Oh, I'm not. Rationality is.

It's up to rationality to identify what makes sense in view of what one has already declared one believes. If one says, "I'm a Determinist," then that position comes with certain rational corollaries that one simply cannot escape.

LOL Here we have, ONCE AGAIN, one BELIEVING that one's OWN VERY PARTICULAR and/or PECULIAR definition of 'things' is the, LAUGHABLE, and so-called 'rational' one.

Are 'you' STILL NOT YET AWARE "immanuel can" that NOT EVERY one USES the EXACT SAME definition that you have and USE, and that "other's 'certain rational corollaries" are therefore DIFFERENT than 'yours' are, "immanuel can"?

One thing is that you also have to believe that "choice" is utterly impossible, "volition" doesn't exist, "human agency" is a myth, and there is no causal power in human "will."

But this is NOT true AT ALL.

As can be OBVIOUSLY SEEN, and thus POINTED OUT and SHOWN throughout just this forum, that other people's DEFINITION of 'determinism' does NOT include AT ALL what you just proposed here.

This VIEW and BELIEF of 'yours' here "immanuel can" is YOURS ALONE. Therefore, there is NO "have to believe ..." AT ALL. Unless, OF COURSE, they HAVE TO BELIEVE what you said here IF, and ONLY IF, they want to FOLLOW 'you' and BELIEVE what 'you' do here. Otherwise, there is NO ACTUAL CASE of "they MUST or HAVE TO BELIEVE [such and such] AT ALL.

Other things that fit Determinism is that whatever happens is the only thing that ever could have happened,

And, what is ALSO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS is that 'whatever happens' is SOLELY because of what 'previously happened', and because what has 'previously happened' has ALREADY HAPPENED, THEN 'whatever happens' is the ONLY 'thing' that could 'have happened'. CONSIDERING what HAS 'previously happened' HAS affected 'what happens' NOW, continually and forever, what HAS 'previously happened' PRE-DETERMINED what IS happening HERE and NOW.

And, for one who BELIEVES WHOLEHEARTEDLY that God exists, then this SHOULD BE VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD and CLEAR. That is; 'whatever happens' WAS PRE-DETERMINED by God, and considering who and what God is EXACTLY, then 'whatever happens' is the ONLY 'thing' that ever could have happened. Or, are 'you' under some sort of ILLUSION that 'you' could ALTER or CHANGE what God has SET OUT for 'you', "immanuel can"?

that there's no such thing as what you "ought" to have done (hence, no morality), and that whatever is, is good...or at least, is not morally bad.

You also have to accept that no human bears any responsibility, because they have no response-ability (meaning, no "ability" to "respond"). And you have to think that we're all just pointlessly playing out the very singular program of strict cause-and-effect that was really predetermined for us the very second this show we call "existence" began.

Well this IS the VERY thing that so-called "christians" and people who BELIEVE IN God have been PROPOSING and PREACHING for centuries now.

Or, are 'you' now STARTING TO BELIEVE that there is ACTUALLY NO God CONTROLLING ALL-OF-THIS NOW "immanuel can"?

All absurd things to believe, I agree.

Is there ANY thing TO BELIEVE, which is NOT absurd?

If yes, then what IS that 'thing' or 'things'?

But once one has declared oneself a Determinist, they all follow as surely as dawn follows dark.

And, they WOULD BE the ones FOLLOWING God's PRE-DETERMINED 'world' and 'goal' ALSO. As ANY one who BELIEVES that they can FREELY CHOOSE to do whatever they want MUST SURELY BE DIVERTING from 'that', what God has INTENDED.

The MORE 'you' 'TRY TO' argue and fight for what 'you', individually, BELIEVE is true, the MORE 'you' end up COUNTER ARGUING for 'your' OTHER STRONGLY HELD ONTO BELIEFS "immanuel can". What 'you' are doing here "immanuel can" is a PRIME EXAMPLE and PROOF of how LOST and CONFUSED adult human beings REALLY WERE, back in the days when this was being written.

[Age]

I don't believe Determinism is true at all, so I don't believe the above.

Determinism means being in line with the six conservation laws of physics: energy, linear momentum, angular momentum, electric charge, color charge, and weak isospin.

No, it doesn't actually. It means the metaphysical claim that these things are all that exist, and all that can have any effect so far as causality goes.

Here we have ANOTHER EXAMPLE of, "No its not", "Yes it is", BACK and FORTH arguing AND fighting, WITHOUT GETTING ANYWHERE.

This kind of, What I BELIEVE is the RIGHT definition is the ONLY TRUE definition and ALL OTHER definitions are false and/or wrong', type of discussions have been going for thousands upon thousands of years, and, STILL, these human beings COULD NOT SEE the ABSOLUTE FUTILITY of doing this or of speaking this way.

Non-determinism also believes in physical laws. It does not at all deny they exist and work, nor does it need to. But non-determinism holds that human beings, their volitions and their choices, are also causal agents, capable of inititating particular effects and actuating alternative outcomes.

So, WHY do BOTH of 'you', adult human beings, BELIEVE that there is ONLY one "side" AND that YOUR "side" is the ONLY RIGHT and TRUE ONE?

[Age]

Isn't it up to Belinda to determine what exactly she believes? Why should she be limited to the choices you want to impose on her?

Oh, I'm not. Rationality is.

It's up to rationality to identify what makes sense in view of what one has already declared one believes. If one says, "I'm a Determinist," then that position comes with certain rational corollaries that one simply cannot escape.

One thing is that you also have to believe that "choice" is utterly impossible, "volition" doesn't exist, "human agency" is a myth, and there is no causal power in human "will."

Other things that fit Determinism is that whatever happens is the only thing that ever could have happened, that there's no such thing as what you "ought" to have done (hence, no morality), and that whatever is, is good...or at least, is not morally bad.

You also have to accept that no human bears any responsibility, because they have no response-ability (meaning, no "ability" to "respond"). And you have to think that we're all just pointlessly playing out the very singular program of strict cause-and-effect that was really predetermined for us the very second this show we call "existence" began.

All absurd things to believe, I agree. But once one has declared oneself a Determinist, they all follow as surely as dawn follows dark.

Unless Belinda, or anyone else, says exactly what they believe, how can you possibly know what they do believe?

I think "immanuel can" really did NOT mean it this way.

Although this can be what "immanuel can" was meaning or implying, I think "immanuel can" is just stating that IF "belinda" wants to believe that "belinda" is a 'determinist", then "belinda" has to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' from a VERY PARTICULAR view of things. This is NOT saying that "immanuel can" is saying "belinda" HAS TO BELIEVE those 'things' or they "belinda" HAS TO HAVE this view, BUT rather that this is what "immanel can's" OWN VIEWS and BELIEFS ARE for what a "determinist" ACTUALLY IS, and therefore this is what EVERY OTHER human being only the planet MUST ALSO SEE and VIEW.

SEE, "immanuel can", has NOT YET REALIZED that 'its' OWN VIEW and PERSPECTIVE of what makes up a 'determinist' COULD ACTUALLY BE False, Wrong, or Incorrect. "immanuel can" is ACTUALLY 'itself' BELIEVING that there is NO OTHER POSSIBLE WAY to LOOK AT and SEE what the word and term 'determinist' COULD MEAN, or COULD REFER TO, AS WELL.

Also, when one STATES that, "I am a determinist", then this IS EXACTLY what they BELIEVE. So, this is HOW 'one' can possibly KNOW what "another" BELIEVES. "immanuel can", unfortunately though, has NOT YET come to terms that what being A "determinist" IS, EXACTLY, could ACTUALLY be DIFFERENT from what "immanuel can" BELIEVES that word or term MEANS and REFERS TO.

See, what "immanuel can" is doing is here is CLAIMING that IF "belinda" or ANY one else BELIEVES and/or CLAIMS that "they are "determinists", then they HAVE TO think, act, and behave in VERY PARTICULAR and VERY PECULIAR WAYS, and IF they do NOT think, act, NOR behave in THOSE WAYS, then they are NOT "determinists" AT ALL.

Which is REALLY ALL VERY FUNNY to WATCH and OBSERVE, because from "immanuel can's" VIEWS and BELIEFS there can NEVER even be such a 'thing' as A "determinist" NOR even 'determinism' as well, although "immanuel can" KEEPS TELLING 'us' what IS 'determinism' and what A "determinist" WOULD DO.

You can't just pin one word (determinist) on someone and claim to know the entirety of what they believe.

I do NOT see "immanuel can" here claiming to KNOW the entirety of what "belinda" BELIEVES, NOR 'pinning' the "determinist" word upon "belinda". What I SAW was "belinda" CLAIMING to be A "determinist", and thus also being what "belinda" BELIEVES is true. To me, the 'pinning' and 'believing' that "belinda" is A "determinist" was done BY "belinda", itself.

And, what I ALSO SAW, and SEE, is "immanuel can" CLAIMING that IF 'you', "belinda", REALLY ARE A "determinist", THEN 'you' MUST DO 'this' as well as BELIEVE 'this'. With the 'this' words just referring to what "immanuel can", itself, BELIEVES is true and right. But which NO one else in this thread does, I will add.