The Democrat Party Hates America

[Immanuel Can]

It is impossible to be a religious fatalist.

Did not you, yourself, just point out that the term "fatalism" derives from reference to the Greek "Fates"? Apparently, it's not only possible, but has been done...and is now being done by Calvinists, as well, of course.

[Belinda]

To say that fatalism does not rely on natural laws and causation, assumes that human perspective knows all there is to know about natural law and causation, yet history and the never-ending science-quests suggest not.

The real issue is very simple: is human volition a cause?

Both sides believe in causality. The Determinists just exclude humans -- even themselves -- from their thinking.

Occam would be spinning in his grave.

If human volition is considered to be part of natural law and causation, then yes, human volition is a cause. In that case, human involvement is a natural cause, and because of that it is subject to natural law, and not merely subject to human comprehension of natural law. Fatalism is bound to neither natural law nor human understanding of natural law, and from I gather, neither is God who can cause miracles that natural law and causation cannot explain, so bound (to the best of man's knowledge).

Genesis 8:20.
What did Noah take of each clean beast? Perhaps, DNA, in ways unknown to man? Just a thought.

Human volition is a causal circumstance. Human volition is caused by the evolution of human language and humans' big brains which endow humans with a larger variety of choices than other animals have. All events including human volition are causes.

Science never claims total knowledge. Inductive logic deals in probabilities not certainties . Any tautology within the explanation of a scientific theory only supplements the thesis.

[Belinda]

It is impossible to be a religious fatalist.

Did not you, yourself, just point out that the term "fatalism" derives from reference to the Greek "Fates"? Apparently, it's not only possible, but has been done...and is now being done by Calvinists, as well, of course.

The difference between pagan gods on the one hand, and the God of Abraham on the other hand is that the pagan gods may be persuaded to change their minds , whereas the God of Abraham on the other hand is Logos.

Calvinistic predestination refers to a version of God in which God forever destines the human individual to be a sinner if that is what Gods intends him to be. I hope you can see how cruel and unforgiving this belief is!

Jesus who expounds God to us was not into predestination but, quite the opposite, endorsed mercy and forgiveness.

Calvin did however admit that the reprobate will dwell side by side with the elect until the Day of Judgment.

[Immanuel Can]

It is impossible to be a religious fatalist.

Did not you, yourself, just point out that the term "fatalism" derives from reference to the Greek "Fates"? Apparently, it's not only possible, but has been done...and is now being done by Calvinists, as well, of course.

The difference between pagan gods on the one hand, and the God of Abraham on the other hand is that the pagan gods may be persuaded to change their minds , whereas the God of Abraham on the other hand is Logos.

Yes, that's one important difference...not the only one, but it certainly counts. There were lots of others, not least that pagan gods were always plural, and thus none of them could ever be the Supreme Being. Also, their characters were very different -- not only from the God of the Jews and Christians, but from each other, as well...and there are more differences.

Calvinistic predestination refers to a version of God in which God forever destines the human individual to be a sinner if that is what Gods intends him to be. I hope you can see how cruel and unforgiving this belief is!

I'm not a Calvinist. I'm not any kind of Determinist. But I have better reasons for refusing both than that I merely find them inconvenient or unpalatable aesthetically. I think we have excellent empirical and logical reasons to reject both, as well.

[Belinda]

Did not you, yourself, just point out that the term "fatalism" derives from reference to the Greek "Fates"? Apparently, it's not only possible, but has been done...and is now being done by Calvinists, as well, of course.

The difference between pagan gods on the one hand, and the God of Abraham on the other hand is that the pagan gods may be persuaded to change their minds , whereas the God of Abraham on the other hand is Logos.

Yes, that's one important difference...not the only one, but it certainly counts. There were lots of others, not least that pagan gods were always plural, and thus none of them could ever be the Supreme Being. Also, their characters were very different -- not only from the God of the Jews and Christians, but from each other, as well...and there are more differences.

Calvinistic predestination refers to a version of God in which God forever destines the human individual to be a sinner if that is what Gods intends him to be. I hope you can see how cruel and unforgiving this belief is!

I'm not a Calvinist. I'm not any kind of Determinist. But I have better reasons for refusing both than that I merely find them inconvenient or unpalatable aesthetically. I think we have excellent empirical and logical reasons to reject both, as well.

I think the really significant difference between a polytheistic pantheon and the Christian trinity is that members of the pantheon can and do disagree with each other whereas the latter cannot disagree with each other (they are three ways , three approaches , to comprehend the same).

If you actually understood determinism then you would understand that Logos is deterministic, or rather that determinism is a way to describe the Logos.

[BigMike]

Did not you, yourself, just point out that the term "fatalism" derives from reference to the Greek "Fates"? Apparently, it's not only possible, but has been done...and is now being done by Calvinists, as well, of course.

The difference between pagan gods on the one hand, and the God of Abraham on the other hand is that the pagan gods may be persuaded to change their minds , whereas the God of Abraham on the other hand is Logos.

Yes, that's one important difference...not the only one, but it certainly counts. There were lots of others, not least that pagan gods were always plural, and thus none of them could ever be the Supreme Being. Also, their characters were very different -- not only from the God of the Jews and Christians, but from each other, as well...and there are more differences.

Calvinistic predestination refers to a version of God in which God forever destines the human individual to be a sinner if that is what Gods intends him to be. I hope you can see how cruel and unforgiving this belief is!

I'm not a Calvinist. I'm not any kind of Determinist. But I have better reasons for refusing both than that I merely find them inconvenient or unpalatable aesthetically. I think we have excellent empirical and logical reasons to reject both, as well.

Once you present your “excellent empirical and logical reasons to reject” determinism, something very simple happens: those reasons—if they truly are empirical and logical—become part of the deterministic framework. That’s how science works. It absorbs valid new data. So if you do manage to disprove determinism with empirical and logical rigor, you haven’t escaped determinism—you've expanded its scope. Your rejection folds into the system you rejected, like a river returning to the ocean. Voilà: determinism just swallowed its own negation, and you're now agreeing with what you thought you were opposing.

That's the beauty of a framework grounded in cause and effect—it doesn't fear correction; it grows from it.

[Gary Childress]

The difference between pagan gods on the one hand, and the God of Abraham on the other hand is that the pagan gods may be persuaded to change their minds , whereas the God of Abraham on the other hand is Logos.

Yes, that's one important difference...not the only one, but it certainly counts. There were lots of others, not least that pagan gods were always plural, and thus none of them could ever be the Supreme Being. Also, their characters were very different -- not only from the God of the Jews and Christians, but from each other, as well...and there are more differences.

Calvinistic predestination refers to a version of God in which God forever destines the human individual to be a sinner if that is what Gods intends him to be. I hope you can see how cruel and unforgiving this belief is!

I'm not a Calvinist. I'm not any kind of Determinist. But I have better reasons for refusing both than that I merely find them inconvenient or unpalatable aesthetically. I think we have excellent empirical and logical reasons to reject both, as well.

Once you present your “excellent empirical and logical reasons to reject” determinism, something very simple happens: those reasons—if they truly are empirical and logical—become part of the deterministic framework. That’s how science works. It absorbs valid new data. So if you do manage to disprove determinism with empirical and logical rigor, you haven’t escaped determinism—you've expanded its scope. Your rejection folds into the system you rejected, like a river returning to the ocean. Voilà: determinism just swallowed its own negation, and you're now agreeing with what you thought you were opposing.

That's the beauty of a framework grounded in cause and effect—it doesn't fear correction; it grows from it.

When you say "determinism" what do you mean? For example, when the universe formed, or whatever it did, was there only a single outcome that could be expected in the end?

For example, if an atom started out in position X at the beginning of the universe, was it determined from the very beginning that when the universe finally ended (or whatever) that it can only end up in position Y and no other position than Y? Is there no such thing as randomness? Can true randomness violate conservation laws?

[Gary Childress]

Once you present your “excellent empirical and logical reasons to reject” determinism, something very simple happens: those reasons—if they truly are empirical and logical—become part of the deterministic framework. That’s how science works. It absorbs valid new data. So if you do manage to disprove determinism with empirical and logical rigor, you haven’t escaped determinism—you've expanded its scope. Your rejection folds into the system you rejected, like a river returning to the ocean. Voilà: determinism just swallowed its own negation, and you're now agreeing with what you thought you were opposing.

That's the beauty of a framework grounded in cause and effect—it doesn't fear correction; it grows from it.

That doesn't appear to make logical sense. If he truly disproves determinism, then (by definition) determinism is disproven. If determinism is not disproven by his proof, then (by definition) the "proof" doesn't disprove determinism.

[Belinda]

Yes, that's one important difference...not the only one, but it certainly counts. There were lots of others, not least that pagan gods were always plural, and thus none of them could ever be the Supreme Being. Also, their characters were very different -- not only from the God of the Jews and Christians, but from each other, as well...and there are more differences.


I'm not a Calvinist. I'm not any kind of Determinist. But I have better reasons for refusing both than that I merely find them inconvenient or unpalatable aesthetically. I think we have excellent empirical and logical reasons to reject both, as well.

Once you present your “excellent empirical and logical reasons to reject” determinism, something very simple happens: those reasons—if they truly are empirical and logical—become part of the deterministic framework. That’s how science works. It absorbs valid new data. So if you do manage to disprove determinism with empirical and logical rigor, you haven’t escaped determinism—you've expanded its scope. Your rejection folds into the system you rejected, like a river returning to the ocean. Voilà: determinism just swallowed its own negation, and you're now agreeing with what you thought you were opposing.

That's the beauty of a framework grounded in cause and effect—it doesn't fear correction; it grows from it.

When you say "determinism" what do you mean? For example, when the universe formed, or whatever it did, was there only a single outcome that could be expected in the end?

For example, if an atom started out in position X at the beginning of the universe, was it determined from the very beginning that when the universe finally ended (or whatever) that it can only end up in position Y? Is there no such thing as randomness? Can true randomness violate conservation laws?

Any event be it an atom or a man is caused by a multiplicity of other events . The future is open not random. The future is open not because future events are random but because nobody can predict them.

The future is chaotic not because it lacks any past history ,but because we cannot know all the unique events or be sure about the lawlike events that brought about whichever past event we are focusing on. To be sure historians try to do so to the best of their abilities. Historians use a combination of scientific probability and interpretation---the more science the better.

[BigMike]

Yes, that's one important difference...not the only one, but it certainly counts. There were lots of others, not least that pagan gods were always plural, and thus none of them could ever be the Supreme Being. Also, their characters were very different -- not only from the God of the Jews and Christians, but from each other, as well...and there are more differences.


I'm not a Calvinist. I'm not any kind of Determinist. But I have better reasons for refusing both than that I merely find them inconvenient or unpalatable aesthetically. I think we have excellent empirical and logical reasons to reject both, as well.

Once you present your “excellent empirical and logical reasons to reject” determinism, something very simple happens: those reasons—if they truly are empirical and logical—become part of the deterministic framework. That’s how science works. It absorbs valid new data. So if you do manage to disprove determinism with empirical and logical rigor, you haven’t escaped determinism—you've expanded its scope. Your rejection folds into the system you rejected, like a river returning to the ocean. Voilà: determinism just swallowed its own negation, and you're now agreeing with what you thought you were opposing.

That's the beauty of a framework grounded in cause and effect—it doesn't fear correction; it grows from it.

When you say "determinism" what do you mean? For example, when the universe formed, or whatever it did, was there only a single outcome that could be expected in the end?

For example, if an atom started out in position X at the beginning of the universe, was it determined from the very beginning that when the universe finally ended (or whatever) that it can only end up in position Y? Is there no such thing as randomness? Can true randomness violate conservation laws?

Ah, Gary—this is a good, clear, essential question. Because what you’re poking at, really, is the boundary line between what we can predict and what we can’t—and whether that boundary is a feature of reality itself or just of our limited understanding. So let’s step into it.

When I say “determinism,” I’m not making the claim that we humans can sit down with a calculator, plug in the position of every atom at the start of the universe, and chart out the whole cosmic story from Big Bang to heat death. That's Laplace’s dream, sure—but not mine.

Determinism here doesn’t mean predictability for us. It means causality in principle. It means every event—every fluttering electron, every human decision, every photon flung across the void—is the result of prior causes acting through the four fundamental interactions: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Always. Without exception. Even when it looks chaotic, even when we can’t know the details, the causal chain is there, humming under the surface, like clockwork too complex for us to follow.

Now, about randomness—this is where people often trip. In quantum mechanics, we do get probabilistic outcomes. We get wavefunction collapse. We get Heisenberg’s uncertainty. But here's the key: even that randomness is bounded by rules. It’s not wild. It's not magical. The probability distributions are fixed, repeatable, measurable. And most physicists would say: whether or not the outcome of a quantum event is “truly” random is still up for debate. But either way, it never violates conservation laws. Not energy, not momentum, not charge, not spin. Those laws hold steady like the foundation of a house, even if the wallpaper is flickering.

So—was that atom bound from the first second to end up in a specific place billions of years later? Not necessarily in a humanly knowable way. But was its journey a chain of causes, uninterrupted, each link bound by physical law? Absolutely. Whether it ended up in position Y or Z, it did so because something made it go there—not in spite of causality, but because of it.

Does that make sense to you as a framework?

[Immanuel Can]

If you actually understood determinism...

Well, somebody clearly doesn't understand it...but it may not be me.

[Immanuel Can]

Once you present your “excellent empirical and logical reasons to reject” determinism, something very simple happens: those reasons—if they truly are empirical and logical—become part of the deterministic framework.

That's a second problem with Determinism: its proponents are so propagandized that they don't realize they've adopted an unfalsifiable delusion. There are actually no terms, no amount of logic, and no facts that they won't simply absorb into that delusion. And no means to falsify their reductional view even exist, so they're utterly unscientific, as well...absent a falsifiability test.

[BigMike]

Once you present your “excellent empirical and logical reasons to reject” determinism, something very simple happens: those reasons—if they truly are empirical and logical—become part of the deterministic framework. That’s how science works. It absorbs valid new data. So if you do manage to disprove determinism with empirical and logical rigor, you haven’t escaped determinism—you've expanded its scope. Your rejection folds into the system you rejected, like a river returning to the ocean. Voilà: determinism just swallowed its own negation, and you're now agreeing with what you thought you were opposing.

That's the beauty of a framework grounded in cause and effect—it doesn't fear correction; it grows from it.

That doesn't appear to make logical sense. If he truly disproves determinism, then (by definition) determinism is disproven. If determinism is not disproven by his proof, then (by definition) the "proof" doesn't disprove determinism.

Right—on the surface, that sounds airtight. If you disprove determinism, then... well, it's disproven. End of story, right? But here’s where we slow down, Gary, and take a closer look at what that actually means in context.

Because determinism—at least the kind we’re talking about here—is not a hypothesis sitting on a shelf next to other hypotheses. It’s not like saying, “Hey, I think this metal is magnetic,” and then we test and maybe it’s not. Determinism, in the way I’m using it, is the foundational framework beneath every test, every proof, every piece of logic or evidence we could even use to challenge it. It’s the commitment to the idea that everything, including thoughts, arguments, discoveries, and even objections to determinism, arise from prior causes governed by physical law.

So what happens if someone brings what they believe is a solid logical or empirical refutation of determinism?

Well, let’s say they succeed. Let’s say they produce something persuasive, compelling, robust. What do we do with it? We don’t throw up our hands and go, “Oh, well, I guess cause and effect don’t matter anymore.” What we actually do—as scientists, as rational thinkers—is we analyze the causes behind that argument. What generated it? What physical processes, what neural events, what evidence chain led to it? We fold it in, because even the act of disproving something is an event. And that event has causes. It doesn't pop out of nowhere.

If it turns out the universe behaves in a way we didn’t expect—fine. That’s not an escape from determinism. That’s just new information about the chain. The old version of determinism may need adjustment—but that new version still obeys conservation laws, still follows physical interactions, still places every phenomenon inside a cause-and-effect web.

So yes, logically speaking, if someone disproves the old model of determinism, then that old model is done. Agreed. But determinism as a principle? The idea that every event has a cause and nothing floats free of physical law? That doesn’t get disproven by logic—it gets clarified by it. That's the distinction.

[BigMike]

Once you present your “excellent empirical and logical reasons to reject” determinism, something very simple happens: those reasons—if they truly are empirical and logical—become part of the deterministic framework.

That's a second problem with Determinism: its proponents are so propagandized that they don't realize they've adopted an unfalsifiable delusion. There are actually no terms, no amount of logic, and no facts that they won't simply absorb into that delusion. And no means to falsify their reductional view even exist, so they're utterly unscientific, as well...absent a falsifiability test.

Okay. Let’s take a deep breath and walk into this slowly—because this is important.

When someone says determinism is “unfalsifiable,” what they’re really getting at is this: If everything, including your objections, your logic, your refutations, are just products of prior causes, then how could we ever know if it’s false? How could we ever step outside the system to test it? And that’s a valid philosophical tension. It’s been around a long time. But let’s get real clear on what’s actually being claimed.

Determinism, as I’ve defined it, isn’t a theory that tries to predict every outcome. It doesn’t say, “Here's what will happen on Tuesday at 3:17 PM.” It says, “Whatever happens, happens because of something—and that something acts in accordance with the four fundamental interactions and the conservation laws.” Not because we like the idea. Not because it’s convenient. But because we’ve never seen a single shred of evidence that any phenomenon—mental, physical, chemical, cosmic—violates causality or steps outside physical law.

Now, let’s talk science. The conservation laws are falsifiable. You can test them, and physicists have. Again and again. For over a century. They’ve never been violated. If energy, momentum, or charge conservation ever broke down—even once—physics would be in full-blown crisis mode. It hasn’t happened. Not at CERN. Not in astrophysics. Not in quantum electrodynamics. So no, determinism isn't a "delusion immune to falsification." It's built on principles that are tested constantly.

And here's the twist: if you did find a violation—some event that really had no prior cause, no connection to anything before it—then determinism would be challenged. But even that challenge would have to be explained. What caused the anomaly? Was it truly acausal, or just a gap in our knowledge? That’s not “propaganda.” That’s scientific rigor. That’s refusing to leap to magical thinking just because the data is hard.

So let’s not pretend determinists are closing their eyes and chanting doctrine. The real question isn’t whether determinism is falsifiable. It’s whether anyone has actually falsified it. So far? No one has. And if someone does, great—we’ll follow the evidence, as we always do. But until then, determinism isn’t the delusion. It’s the default.

[FlashDangerpants]

This thing where every discussion has to be the same thread about Mike and determinism is getting to be as bad as when VA made everything about his fucking FSK thing.