Can the Secularists be Trusted?

[Wizard22]

Define "proper, true, or good Morality."

In the United States, the Secular State does not teach children/teenagers about Sex, aside from "penis goes inside vagina = baby". Then they hand out condoms to 14-year-olds. This Liberal-Leftist-Secularism is very recent though. Protestant Christians used to hold Moral Authority in the United States, and the Bible was an essential part of Public Education (https://hc.edu/museums/dunham-bible-mus ... education/). Nowadays however, the Secular State teaches that recreational sex, homosexuality, transexuality, masturbation, abortions are all "equally valid" to procreational sex.

Which is false, and a vicious lie.

The State does not actually Educate young men and women, how they ought to seek mates, how they ought to empower themselves, how they ought to face rejection, how they ought to prefer Monogamy before Promiscuity, etc. The State pulls sex out of the Church, out of normal Marriages, and hands the matter of sex over to Hollywood Pornographers.


So the proper, true, and good Morality is NOT within the US Secular State. Westerners ought to look to the Churches, or since they've weakened and betrayed the people, start new Churches with severe ethics.

[Wizard22]

Determinism isn’t a tool for predicting every micro-decision a person will make, like which shirt they’ll wear tomorrow. That would be absurd

If we cling to the illusion of free will, we justify punishment as retribution—a moral payback for a freely chosen act.

BigMike, how can you admit that Determinism is flawed in one sentence, but then "free will is an illusion" in the next?

Isn't Free-Will implied by the gap and erroneous flaw within Determinism? You admitted that Determinism cannot accurately predict "moment-to-moment" decisions...doesn't that then signify that people do in fact have Free-Will??

[BigMike]

Define "proper, true, or good Morality."

In the United States, the Secular State does not teach children/teenagers about Sex, aside from "penis goes inside vagina = baby". Then they hand out condoms to 14-year-olds. This Liberal-Leftist-Secularism is very recent though. Protestant Christians used to hold Moral Authority in the United States, and the Bible was an essential part of Public Education (https://hc.edu/museums/dunham-bible-mus ... education/). Nowadays however, the Secular State teaches that recreational sex, homosexuality, transexuality, masturbation, abortions are all "equally valid" to procreational sex.

Which is false, and a vicious lie.

The State does not actually Educate young men and women, how they ought to seek mates, how they ought to empower themselves, how they ought to face rejection, how they ought to prefer Monogamy before Promiscuity, etc. The State pulls sex out of the Church, out of normal Marriages, and hands the matter of sex over to Hollywood Pornographers.


So the proper, true, and good Morality is NOT within the US Secular State. Westerners ought to look to the Churches, or since they've weakened and betrayed the people, start new Churches with severe ethics.

Wizard22, your response raises a lot of points, and while it’s clear you feel strongly about these issues, we need to take a step back and examine the foundation of your argument. You're asserting that a "proper, true, and good morality" is found in church-centered ethics and that the secular state has failed in matters of education and moral guidance. But let’s pause for a moment and ask: where does morality come from, and what makes it "true" or "good"? Is it rooted in divine authority, or does it emerge from something deeper—something universal?

From a deterministic perspective, morality isn’t handed down from on high or dictated by institutions, secular or religious. It evolves. It’s shaped by cause-and-effect relationships, by our biology, our need to cooperate as social beings, and the pressures of living in complex societies. These factors have been at work long before modern secular states or religious institutions existed.

Take, for example, your critique of sex education. You argue that the secular state has failed because it doesn't teach young people "how they ought to seek mates," "how they ought to prefer monogamy," or similar virtues. But consider why sex education in secular systems focuses on practical knowledge—contraception, consent, and preventing harm. It’s not because secularism lacks morality. It’s because morality, from a deterministic lens, is about minimizing harm and promoting well-being. If young people are taught the causes and consequences of their actions—free from dogma—they’re better equipped to make informed decisions that lead to healthier outcomes.

Now, let’s address the idea that morality belongs to churches. History shows that religious institutions have often been just as flawed as secular ones. They’ve justified wars, endorsed slavery, suppressed science, and perpetuated inequality—all under the banner of "proper morality." Why? Because their moral codes, like all others, are products of their time and circumstances. They, too, are shaped by deterministic forces: power structures, cultural norms, and the human tendency to prioritize in-group interests over out-group ones.

You suggest that morality today is "a vicious lie" because it doesn’t align with your preferred framework of monogamy, procreation, or church-centered ethics. But morality isn’t a fixed, eternal truth. It’s a tool—an adaptive framework that helps societies thrive. And as societies change, so does morality. For example, as we’ve come to understand more about human sexuality and gender identity, our moral frameworks have shifted to include principles like equality, consent, and individual freedom. These shifts aren’t about abandoning morality; they’re about refining it to better serve human well-being.

So, to your point about the secular state "failing" at moral education: the state doesn’t claim moral infallibility. It addresses practical concerns like public health and social equity. And where it falls short, the solution isn’t to retreat into dogma or build "new churches with severe ethics." It’s to continue advancing our understanding of what promotes flourishing and reduces harm—for everyone, not just those who fit a specific moral mold.

In a deterministic world, morality isn’t about obedience to authority—be it church or state. It’s about understanding the web of causes that shape human behavior and creating systems that lead to better outcomes for all. If the secular state isn't perfect, neither is the church. What matters is whether our moral systems are working to make life better. And that, Wizard22, is a question best answered not by dogma, but by reason, compassion, and evidence.

[Wizard22]

Wizard22, your response raises a lot of points, and while it’s clear you feel strongly about these issues, we need to take a step back and examine the foundation of your argument. You're asserting that a "proper, true, and good morality" is found in church-centered ethics and that the secular state has failed in matters of education and moral guidance. But let’s pause for a moment and ask: where does morality come from, and what makes it "true" or "good"? Is it rooted in divine authority, or does it emerge from something deeper—something universal?

It comes from God.

From a deterministic perspective, morality isn’t handed down from on high or dictated by institutions, secular or religious. It evolves. It’s shaped by cause-and-effect relationships, by our biology, our need to cooperate as social beings, and the pressures of living in complex societies. These factors have been at work long before modern secular states or religious institutions existed.

Take, for example, your critique of sex education. You argue that the secular state has failed because it doesn't teach young people "how they ought to seek mates," "how they ought to prefer monogamy," or similar virtues. But consider why sex education in secular systems focuses on practical knowledge—contraception, consent, and preventing harm. It’s not because secularism lacks morality. It’s because morality, from a deterministic lens, is about minimizing harm and promoting well-being. If young people are taught the causes and consequences of their actions—free from dogma—they’re better equipped to make informed decisions that lead to healthier outcomes.

No no, Morality is less about "preventing harm" and most about "creating The Good". As with your Secular perspective and position, you have no grounds to dictate or "determine" what young men and women, teenagers, should or should not do. Educating teenagers about "Cause and Consequence" is not good enough, not even close. Because teenage sex-drives tell the teenagers to have sex, despite all the Secular nonsense about contraception. Teenage sex drives are too powerful.

Instead, teenagers should be taught the better and best ways to have sex and relationships, which is Procreative, not Recreative.

If teenagers first impression of Sex is masturbation, homosexuality, transexuality, abortion...then they've shot themselves in the foot from the start. The Secular State is in no position to dictate to children or teenagers, how they ought to have sex from the start. If they learn that they can "have sex for fun", instead of its primary role IN NATURE, reproduction, then they're put on a false-start. They hindered, crippled, and clipped from the onset. They'll waste a lot of time, energy, money, and LIFE in the process.

Now, let’s address the idea that morality belongs to churches. History shows that religious institutions have often been just as flawed as secular ones.

That's not true--secular institutions are leagues worse in matters of morality and ethics.

They’ve justified wars, endorsed slavery, suppressed science, and perpetuated inequality—all under the banner of "proper morality." Why? Because their moral codes, like all others, are products of their time and circumstances. They, too, are shaped by deterministic forces: power structures, cultural norms, and the human tendency to prioritize in-group interests over out-group ones.

Secularism has done all those too.

You suggest that morality today is "a vicious lie" because it doesn’t align with your preferred framework of monogamy, procreation, or church-centered ethics. But morality isn’t a fixed, eternal truth.

Yes it is--a fixed, eternal truth.

It’s a tool—an adaptive framework that helps societies thrive. And as societies change, so does morality.

Yes, that's your secular opinion on the matter, I'm aware.

For example, as we’ve come to understand more about human sexuality and gender identity,

What we've "learned" is how to pervert, sexualize children, teach them hedonism, sodomy, and that recreational sex is first, procreational sex is last or non-existence. Hence Western Society has degenerated and become ill, diseased.

our moral frameworks have shifted to include principles like equality, consent, and individual freedom. These shifts aren’t about abandoning morality; they’re about refining it to better serve human well-being.

We've abandoned our (previously Christian) morality.

So, to your point about the secular state "failing" at moral education: the state doesn’t claim moral infallibility. It addresses practical concerns like public health and social equity. And where it falls short, the solution isn’t to retreat into dogma or build "new churches with severe ethics." It’s to continue advancing our understanding of what promotes flourishing and reduces harm—for everyone, not just those who fit a specific moral mold.

In a deterministic world, morality isn’t about obedience to authority—be it church or state. It’s about understanding the web of causes that shape human behavior and creating systems that lead to better outcomes for all. If the secular state isn't perfect, neither is the church. What matters is whether our moral systems are working to make life better. And that, Wizard22, is a question best answered not by dogma, but by reason, compassion, and evidence.

It doesn't matter what's "Perfect". It only matters what's better or The Best.

Churches ought to be the ones teaching (Procreational) Sex to young adults and teenagers, not the secular state (Recreational Sex).

Western Civilization now sees the illnesses, diseases, confusion, and anarchy all these (secular values) brings.

[BigMike]

Determinism isn’t a tool for predicting every micro-decision a person will make, like which shirt they’ll wear tomorrow. That would be absurd

If we cling to the illusion of free will, we justify punishment as retribution—a moral payback for a freely chosen act.

BigMike, how can you admit that Determinism is flawed in one sentence, but then "free will is an illusion" in the next?

Isn't Free-Will implied by the gap and erroneous flaw within Determinism? You admitted that Determinism cannot accurately predict "moment-to-moment" decisions...doesn't that then signify that people do in fact have Free-Will??

Wizard22, I see where your confusion lies, and it’s worth clarifying because this distinction is critical. Determinism isn’t “flawed” because it doesn’t predict every micro-decision. That’s not a failure of determinism—it’s a misunderstanding of its scope. Determinism doesn’t claim to be an oracle capable of predicting the precise outcome of every event in the universe. Instead, it states that every event, every action, and every decision has a cause, even if we don’t (yet) have the tools to fully enumerate all of them.

Let’s use an analogy to make this clear. Gravity, as a concept, is deterministic. It dictates how objects move under its influence. But does the fact that we can’t predict the exact trajectory of every leaf falling in a breeze mean gravity doesn’t exist? Of course not. The complexity of the system—the interplay of wind currents, the shape of the leaf, the micro-turbulence in the air—makes precise prediction impractical. But it doesn’t invalidate gravity. Similarly, the unpredictability of moment-to-moment human decisions doesn’t negate determinism; it reflects the complexity of the underlying system.

Now, to your assertion that unpredictability implies free will: not so fast. The inability to predict an outcome doesn’t mean that outcome is free of causation. Think about rolling a pair of dice. The result is unpredictable, but it’s not “free”—it’s determined by the angle, velocity, and conditions of the roll. Similarly, human decisions may appear unpredictable because of the vast number of variables involved, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t caused. Those causes—genes, environment, past experiences, and even the limitations of our own cognition—form a deterministic web.

The "gap" you point to isn’t a flaw in determinism; it’s a reflection of our incomplete understanding. Science constantly works to illuminate that gap, narrowing it with tools like neuroscience, psychology, and behavioral analysis. But even where uncertainty remains, it doesn’t point to free will—it points to complexity. Free will, as traditionally understood, requires actions to be uncaused or self-caused, which would violate the laws of physics. That’s the real flaw: the idea of free will is logically incoherent because nothing can cause itself.

So, no, unpredictability doesn’t signify free will. It signifies that we’re dealing with systems too intricate to fully map yet. But the beauty of determinism is that it encourages us to look deeper, to seek the causes behind what we might otherwise dismiss as chance or freedom. And as we uncover those causes, we can better understand, and even influence, the conditions that lead to better outcomes—for individuals and societies alike.

The illusion of free will is seductive, I’ll grant you that. It feels empowering to think we’re the ultimate authors of our choices. But that’s all it is: a feeling. The deterministic perspective doesn’t diminish us—it grounds us in reality and gives us the tools to understand why we are the way we are. It’s not a flaw; it’s clarity. And that, Wizard22, is what makes determinism far more compelling than the comforting fiction of free will.

[Wizard22]

Wizard22, I see where your confusion lies, and it’s worth clarifying because this distinction is critical. Determinism isn’t “flawed” because it doesn’t predict every micro-decision. That’s not a failure of determinism—it’s a misunderstanding of its scope. Determinism doesn’t claim to be an oracle capable of predicting the precise outcome of every event in the universe. Instead, it states that every event, every action, and every decision has a cause, even if we don’t (yet) have the tools to fully enumerate all of them.

Let’s use an analogy to make this clear. Gravity, as a concept, is deterministic. It dictates how objects move under its influence. But does the fact that we can’t predict the exact trajectory of every leaf falling in a breeze mean gravity doesn’t exist? Of course not. The complexity of the system—the interplay of wind currents, the shape of the leaf, the micro-turbulence in the air—makes precise prediction impractical. But it doesn’t invalidate gravity. Similarly, the unpredictability of moment-to-moment human decisions doesn’t negate determinism; it reflects the complexity of the underlying system.

Now, to your assertion that unpredictability implies free will: not so fast. The inability to predict an outcome doesn’t mean that outcome is free of causation. Think about rolling a pair of dice. The result is unpredictable, but it’s not “free”—it’s determined by the angle, velocity, and conditions of the roll. Similarly, human decisions may appear unpredictable because of the vast number of variables involved, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t caused. Those causes—genes, environment, past experiences, and even the limitations of our own cognition—form a deterministic web.

The "gap" you point to isn’t a flaw in determinism; it’s a reflection of our incomplete understanding. Science constantly works to illuminate that gap, narrowing it with tools like neuroscience, psychology, and behavioral analysis. But even where uncertainty remains, it doesn’t point to free will—it points to complexity. Free will, as traditionally understood, requires actions to be uncaused or self-caused, which would violate the laws of physics. That’s the real flaw: the idea of free will is logically incoherent because nothing can cause itself.

So, no, unpredictability doesn’t signify free will. It signifies that we’re dealing with systems too intricate to fully map yet. But the beauty of determinism is that it encourages us to look deeper, to seek the causes behind what we might otherwise dismiss as chance or freedom. And as we uncover those causes, we can better understand, and even influence, the conditions that lead to better outcomes—for individuals and societies alike.

The illusion of free will is seductive, I’ll grant you that. It feels empowering to think we’re the ultimate authors of our choices. But that’s all it is: a feeling. The deterministic perspective doesn’t diminish us—it grounds us in reality and gives us the tools to understand why we are the way we are. It’s not a flaw; it’s clarity. And that, Wizard22, is what makes determinism far more compelling than the comforting fiction of free will.

What is a "Cause", BigMike?

[attofishpi]

Wizard22, I see where your confusion lies..

I've noticed Mike, this is always your opening line with anyone that disagrees with your nonsense.

You condescend in stating that somehow, they are confused (* by your amazing deep knowledge of the nature of reality).

FFS.

U R wrong. GOD exists and as per your definition of a requirement for determinism, that makes determinism less real than BULLSHIT.

[promethean75]

"Instead, teenagers should be taught the better and best ways to have sex and relationships"

Sex ed in the house of Zappa. Moon Unit is such a regal sexy beast i should have married that girl. She's got sprinkles of Frank's arabic and greek side.

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxT5nB-LM17p ... j9fdax5AM7

See but not all families can do it like this because they aren't mature enough. The kids are obnoxious and the parents are morons, so they have to do this official talk about sex and the parents try to impose all manner of restrictions and rules which the teenagers invariably break.

[BigMike]

Wizard22, your response raises a lot of points, and while it’s clear you feel strongly about these issues, we need to take a step back and examine the foundation of your argument. You're asserting that a "proper, true, and good morality" is found in church-centered ethics and that the secular state has failed in matters of education and moral guidance. But let’s pause for a moment and ask: where does morality come from, and what makes it "true" or "good"? Is it rooted in divine authority, or does it emerge from something deeper—something universal?

It comes from God.

From a deterministic perspective, morality isn’t handed down from on high or dictated by institutions, secular or religious. It evolves. It’s shaped by cause-and-effect relationships, by our biology, our need to cooperate as social beings, and the pressures of living in complex societies. These factors have been at work long before modern secular states or religious institutions existed.

Take, for example, your critique of sex education. You argue that the secular state has failed because it doesn't teach young people "how they ought to seek mates," "how they ought to prefer monogamy," or similar virtues. But consider why sex education in secular systems focuses on practical knowledge—contraception, consent, and preventing harm. It’s not because secularism lacks morality. It’s because morality, from a deterministic lens, is about minimizing harm and promoting well-being. If young people are taught the causes and consequences of their actions—free from dogma—they’re better equipped to make informed decisions that lead to healthier outcomes.

No no, Morality is less about "preventing harm" and most about "creating The Good". As with your Secular perspective and position, you have no grounds to dictate or "determine" what young men and women, teenagers, should or should not do. Educating teenagers about "Cause and Consequence" is not good enough, not even close. Because teenage sex-drives tell the teenagers to have sex, despite all the Secular nonsense about contraception. Teenage sex drives are too powerful.

Instead, teenagers should be taught the better and best ways to have sex and relationships, which is Procreative, not Recreative.

If teenagers first impression of Sex is masturbation, homosexuality, transexuality, abortion...then they've shot themselves in the foot from the start. The Secular State is in no position to dictate to children or teenagers, how they ought to have sex from the start. If they learn that they can "have sex for fun", instead of its primary role IN NATURE, reproduction, then they're put on a false-start. They hindered, crippled, and clipped from the onset. They'll waste a lot of time, energy, money, and LIFE in the process.

Now, let’s address the idea that morality belongs to churches. History shows that religious institutions have often been just as flawed as secular ones.

That's not true--secular institutions are leagues worse in matters of morality and ethics.

They’ve justified wars, endorsed slavery, suppressed science, and perpetuated inequality—all under the banner of "proper morality." Why? Because their moral codes, like all others, are products of their time and circumstances. They, too, are shaped by deterministic forces: power structures, cultural norms, and the human tendency to prioritize in-group interests over out-group ones.

Secularism has done all those too.

You suggest that morality today is "a vicious lie" because it doesn’t align with your preferred framework of monogamy, procreation, or church-centered ethics. But morality isn’t a fixed, eternal truth.

Yes it is--a fixed, eternal truth.

It’s a tool—an adaptive framework that helps societies thrive. And as societies change, so does morality.

Yes, that's your secular opinion on the matter, I'm aware.

For example, as we’ve come to understand more about human sexuality and gender identity,

What we've "learned" is how to pervert, sexualize children, teach them hedonism, sodomy, and that recreational sex is first, procreational sex is last or non-existence. Hence Western Society has degenerated and become ill, diseased.

our moral frameworks have shifted to include principles like equality, consent, and individual freedom. These shifts aren’t about abandoning morality; they’re about refining it to better serve human well-being.

We've abandoned our (previously Christian) morality.

So, to your point about the secular state "failing" at moral education: the state doesn’t claim moral infallibility. It addresses practical concerns like public health and social equity. And where it falls short, the solution isn’t to retreat into dogma or build "new churches with severe ethics." It’s to continue advancing our understanding of what promotes flourishing and reduces harm—for everyone, not just those who fit a specific moral mold.

In a deterministic world, morality isn’t about obedience to authority—be it church or state. It’s about understanding the web of causes that shape human behavior and creating systems that lead to better outcomes for all. If the secular state isn't perfect, neither is the church. What matters is whether our moral systems are working to make life better. And that, Wizard22, is a question best answered not by dogma, but by reason, compassion, and evidence.

It doesn't matter what's "Perfect". It only matters what's better or The Best.

Churches ought to be the ones teaching (Procreational) Sex to young adults and teenagers, not the secular state (Recreational Sex).

Western Civilization now sees the illnesses, diseases, confusion, and anarchy all these (secular values) brings.

Wizard22, your reply reveals a deep divide between how we understand morality, education, and the role of society in shaping human behavior. You’re advocating for a return to a church-centered moral framework, grounded in an eternal, unchanging truth that you believe is derived from God. I’m presenting a deterministic perspective that sees morality as an evolving construct, shaped by cause-and-effect relationships. These are fundamentally different approaches, but let me address your claims directly.

You argue that morality is not about "preventing harm" but about "creating The Good," which you define narrowly through a lens of procreation and traditional sexual ethics. From a deterministic standpoint, this notion of "The Good" is itself a product of historical, social, and cultural influences—not a universal, eternal truth. You point to sex education as an example of secularism’s failure, but what you describe as a "false-start" for teenagers—teaching them about contraception, consent, and diverse sexual identities—is, in fact, an effort to address the complex realities of human behavior. Teenagers do not act based on ideals alone; they act based on the impulses, pressures, and environments they navigate. The goal of sex education is to equip them with tools to make informed, safer decisions, acknowledging those realities.

You state that churches should be the authority on teaching sexuality, rooted in procreation as the primary purpose of sex. But history shows that church-led teachings often ignore or suppress the complexity of human experience. By framing sex solely around procreation, this approach marginalizes those whose identities or circumstances fall outside that narrow view. It also ignores the fact that sexuality, like morality, is deeply shaped by biology, environment, and social structures. A deterministic lens sees this as an opportunity for understanding and compassion, not judgment or exclusion.

Your claim that secularism has caused moral decay, leading to "illnesses, diseases, confusion, and anarchy," is striking but unsupported by evidence. Societies are complex, and their successes and failures cannot be reduced to a single cause like secularism or religious decline. Many of the challenges you describe—inequality, exploitation, the objectification of human bodies—are byproducts of larger systemic issues, not the result of secular education or shifts in moral frameworks.

You emphasize that morality is fixed and eternal. But if that were true, why do moral codes differ so widely across cultures and eras? Even within religious traditions, interpretations evolve. The deterministic view recognizes morality as a tool that adapts to the needs of society. What worked in a pastoral, agrarian society 2,000 years ago may not address the challenges of a global, interconnected world today. This adaptability is not moral decay—it’s moral progress.

Finally, your assertion that the church is the "better" or "best" source of moral guidance ignores the harm that rigid, dogmatic systems can perpetuate. A deterministic approach asks us to move beyond dogma—whether secular or religious—and focus on what actually works to improve human well-being. It’s not about choosing between secularism or the church but about building systems grounded in compassion, reason, and evidence that lead to better outcomes for all.

The world is not as simple as procreation versus recreation, morality versus immorality, church versus state. It’s a web of interconnected causes and effects, shaped by countless factors. Determinism invites us to understand that web, not impose rigid frameworks that fail to account for its complexity. If we truly want a society that thrives, we must ask not what is "eternal" but what is effective in creating a world where all people can flourish. That’s a question worth exploring together.

[Wizard22]

"Instead, teenagers should be taught the better and best ways to have sex and relationships"

Sex ed in the house of Zappa. Moon Unit is such a regal sexy beast i should have married that girl. She's got sprinkles of Frank's arabic and greek side.

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxT5nB-LM17p ... j9fdax5AM7

See but not all families can do it like this because they aren't mature enough. The kids are obnoxious and the parents are morons, so they have to do this official talk about sex and the parents try to impose all manner of restrictions and rules which the teenagers invariably break.

It's really interesting--no matter how people have ever tried to "control Sex", the sex-drive proves too powerful in the end. Even in the Arab world, women will throw off their veils and risk executions, or have love affairs at the risk of death. There's something noble about that. I don't necessarily think it can or 'should be' controlled. But people, and parents, should at least try to push it in the right direction.

Even liberal-leftist fathers don't want their daughters sullying themselves. There is implicit trust involved. Zappa trusted/trusts his daughter. That means something, despite his atheistic/secularist mindset. I believe that fathers, no matter which end of the spectrum, want their sense of morality and idealism passed onto their children.

[BigMike]

What is a "Cause", BigMike?

Wizard22, a "cause" is simply the preceding condition or set of conditions that produces an effect. In the deterministic framework, a cause is not mystical or abstract—it’s a tangible interaction governed by the physical laws of the universe. When we talk about causation, we’re referring to the chain of events, forces, or circumstances that bring something about, whether it’s a falling apple, a chemical reaction, or a human decision.

For example, if you drop a ball, gravity causes it to fall. The motion is determined by factors like the gravitational pull, the ball’s mass, and the resistance of the air. It’s predictable because the forces involved operate consistently under the laws of physics. Similarly, when it comes to human behavior, a cause might include genetic predispositions, past experiences, social influences, and immediate environmental factors. These elements interact to produce an outcome—like a decision or action—in much the same way physical forces interact to produce motion.

This is the crux of determinism: everything has a cause, even if we don’t fully understand all the variables in play. For a human decision, the "causes" aren’t magical or self-contained within an individual’s will. They emerge from the interplay of neural processes, hormonal signals, external stimuli, and the social context in which a person exists.

When you ask, "What is a cause?" you’re touching on the heart of why determinism is so important. A cause is the reason something happens, and understanding those reasons—whether in physics, biology, or human behavior—is how we make sense of the world. By tracing causes, we can intervene to change outcomes, whether that means preventing harm, improving lives, or solving problems. This is why determinism is not just a philosophical stance—it’s a practical tool for understanding and influencing reality.

[BigMike]

Wizard22, I see where your confusion lies..

I've noticed Mike, this is always your opening line with anyone that disagrees with your nonsense.

You condescend in stating that somehow, they are confused (* by your amazing deep knowledge of the nature of reality).

FFS.

U R wrong. GOD exists and as per your definition of a requirement for determinism, that makes determinism less real than BULLSHIT.

Attofishpi, if you believe determinism is "less real than BULLSHIT," then by all means, formulate an adult argument to support that claim. Saying "GOD exists" without evidence or explanation doesn’t cut it. Show how determinism violates observable reality or logical consistency—otherwise, you're just waving your hands and hoping no one notices the lack of substance.

[Wizard22]

Wizard22, a "cause" is simply the preceding condition or set of conditions that produces an effect. In the deterministic framework, a cause is not mystical or abstract—it’s a tangible interaction governed by the physical laws of the universe. When we talk about causation, we’re referring to the chain of events, forces, or circumstances that bring something about, whether it’s a falling apple, a chemical reaction, or a human decision.

For example, if you drop a ball, gravity causes it to fall. The motion is determined by factors like the gravitational pull, the ball’s mass, and the resistance of the air. It’s predictable because the forces involved operate consistently under the laws of physics. Similarly, when it comes to human behavior, a cause might include genetic predispositions, past experiences, social influences, and immediate environmental factors. These elements interact to produce an outcome—like a decision or action—in much the same way physical forces interact to produce motion.

This is the crux of determinism: everything has a cause, even if we don’t fully understand all the variables in play. For a human decision, the "causes" aren’t magical or self-contained within an individual’s will. They emerge from the interplay of neural processes, hormonal signals, external stimuli, and the social context in which a person exists.

When you ask, "What is a cause?" you’re touching on the heart of why determinism is so important. A cause is the reason something happens, and understanding those reasons—whether in physics, biology, or human behavior—is how we make sense of the world. By tracing causes, we can intervene to change outcomes, whether that means preventing harm, improving lives, or solving problems. This is why determinism is not just a philosophical stance—it’s a practical tool for understanding and influencing reality.

Why do you, and other Determinists believe, that there is some type of 'Universal' cause and antecedent condition that is 'Universal' (existing at all times and places), when there is no SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to presume such or that there ever could be?

In other words, any hypothetical 'Causes' to one phenomenon are NOT in fact universal, but temporal and specific to sets of conditions. This is to say that one chemical effect does not randomly cause other sets of effects or vice-versa. Thus it cannot be said, presumed, or claimed, that there is some type of "UNIVERSAL CATAYLYST". However this is precisely the 'Beginning' to Physical Laws, Causality, Determinism, and any other such presupposition.

Thereby your "Reasoning", logic, and rationality, are all tied to this UNIVERSAL CATALYST, or Big Bang Theory, in order to tie all your Causal presuppositions together. Without which, there is no reason why to presume that...for example chemical changes...all have a common cause or catalyst. Because they don't.


Therefore, "Free-Will" is presumed to exist in areas of human ignorance AS IS general 'Deterministic' theories and hypotheses. This is a matter of Epistemology. In areas Unknown, Free-Will or Determinism may, or may not exist. But in areas Known, you claim that Determinism only exists and Free-Will cannot. I disagree. Free-Will can be a matter of knowledge, in the same way 'Determinism' is considered "human knowledge". Because Free-Will is reified by every broken supposition. Humanity expects things to be a certain way--or for humans to be able to do certain things. And humanity's expectations are constantly broken by rare acts of Freedom, of Free-Will, which continually exemplify Human Excellence.

[BigMike]

Why do you, and other Determinists believe, that there is some type of 'Universal' cause and antecedent condition that is 'Universal' (existing at all times and places), when there is no SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to presume such or that there ever could be?

In other words, any hypothetical 'Causes' to one phenomenon are NOT in fact universal, but temporal and specific to sets of conditions. This is to say that one chemical effect does not randomly cause other sets of effects or vice-versa. Thus it cannot be said, presumed, or claimed, that there is some type of "UNIVERSAL CATAYLYST". However this is precisely the 'Beginning' to Physical Laws, Causality, Determinism, and any other such presupposition.

Thereby your "Reasoning", logic, and rationality, are all tied to this UNIVERSAL CATALYST, or Big Bang Theory, in order to tie all your Causal presuppositions together. Without which, there is no reason why to presume that...for example chemical changes...all have a common cause or catalyst. Because they don't.


Therefore, "Free-Will" is presumed to exist in areas of human ignorance AS IS general 'Deterministic' theories and hypotheses. This is a matter of Epistemology. In areas Unknown, Free-Will or Determinism may, or may not exist. But in areas Known, you claim that Determinism only exists and Free-Will cannot. I disagree. Free-Will can be a matter of knowledge, in the same way 'Determinism' is considered "human knowledge". Because Free-Will is reified by every broken supposition. Humanity expects things to be a certain way--or for humans to be able to do certain things. And humanity's expectations are constantly broken by rare acts of Freedom, of Free-Will, which continually exemplify Human Excellence.

Wizard22, you’ve raised a thoughtful objection, but it hinges on a misunderstanding of what determinism means and how causality works. Let’s break this down in terms of cause and effect, starting with the most fundamental physical interactions.

At its core, causality in the deterministic framework is not tied to a "universal catalyst" or a singular originating event like the Big Bang. Instead, it’s the observation that all phenomena arise from interactions governed by the four fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. These interactions are the bedrock of every cause-and-effect relationship we observe.

Cause and effect are not about a singular, universal cause dictating everything but about how events unfold through chains or webs of interrelated interactions. For example, when I write this response, a vast network of molecular, neural, and physical events occurs in my brain and body, all interacting according to deterministic principles. When you read it, another cascade of such events happens on your end. In between, countless smaller processes—like the flow of electrons transmitting this text over the internet—serve as intermediate links in this causal chain.

The deterministic perspective doesn’t rely on a universal catalyst to "tie everything together." Instead, it recognizes that every effect is the result of preceding conditions and interactions. There’s no need to posit randomness or "free will" when the evidence shows that even the most complex phenomena—like human decisions—can be understood as the emergent outcomes of many smaller, deterministic causes.

You suggest that free will emerges in areas of human ignorance, where causation seems unclear or incomplete. But this is a leap of logic. Just because we don’t yet fully understand every causal factor doesn’t mean those factors don’t exist. Historically, gaps in knowledge—like the cause of disease before germ theory—were often filled with assumptions that later proved false. Free will, as you describe it, functions in much the same way: as a placeholder explanation that crumbles under scrutiny.

Finally, the idea that "rare acts of freedom" exemplify human excellence doesn’t negate determinism. What you’re calling freedom—innovation, creativity, overcoming obstacles—is itself the product of deterministic factors: unique combinations of genetics, environment, and experiences. These factors don’t diminish human achievement; they provide the framework within which it occurs.

Determinism isn’t about reducing human action to mechanical processes devoid of meaning. It’s about understanding the intricate web of causes that shape our reality. The interplay of forces at every level—from the molecular to the societal—produces the rich complexity we experience every day. Free will, as comforting as it might feel, isn’t a scientifically grounded explanation. It’s an illusion born of incomplete knowledge.

[Wizard22]

What you’re calling freedom—innovation, creativity, overcoming obstacles—is itself the product of deterministic factors: unique combinations of genetics, environment, and experiences. These factors don’t diminish human achievement; they provide the framework within which it occurs.

You don't know that--and you can't prove it if you did know it. Freedom is in spite of determinism, not because of it.

To be Free, is to be Un-determined.