Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Age]

And what's your problem with that?

Obviously, my problem with it is: it's a false statement, one neither of us believes.

Anyway...

We been on retread mode for a while, Mike, sayin' the same things over and over, so I'll step out for a bit. Mebbe if you actually undergird your claims, I'll step back in.

Till then, this is my close...

A series of physical and material events, when no *consciousness* enters in, can only be purely deterministic (again if I understand aright). An object in motion cannot make a choice to behave differently. It has no volition.

In the determinism Mike claims to promote, it matters not one jot if consciousness enters becuz consciousness is causally inevitable. Consciousness is just another result, another event. Mike, however, is a compatibilist. In his view consciousness, which can be educated, which can evaluate, which can decide, does matter. Somehow this educable, evaluating, deciding consciousness exercises control over itself. It self-directs.

Sounds a lot like some kind of free will to me.

I have found it ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS to WATCH those who BELIEVE that they are ABSOLUTELY 'FREE' when they also ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE that A God has A plan, for them, and has 'planned' ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing out, for them.

All of you human beings, here, are continually CONTRADICTING "your" very own 'selves'.

And, the FUNNIEST PART of this is you do it when just 'trying to' argue or fight FOR your own 'current' BELIEFS and when 'trying' to' argue or fight AGAINST 'another' pre-determined free-willed human being, who also just 'currently' has an opposing, yet also unsubstantiated BELIEF/S,

LOL Absolutely EVERY one of 'you' WANTS and DESIRES to live in peace and harmony, together, as One. Yet ALL of you older ones WANT to fight and argue what you ALL had ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL AT ALL OVER what you were taught and learned, as children.

you ALL were taught, and learned, as 'unfree children' HOW to MISBEHAVE when meant-to-be 'responsible free-willed adult human beings'.

you are ALL MISSING that you were ALL pre-determined to MISBEHAVE, BECAUSE you human beings learn BEST from your OWN MISTAKES.

your OWN MISTAKES, which you are ALL SHOWING, and PROVING, here, in this forum, HELP, TREMENDOUSLY,. future human beings, and thus humanity, from making the EXACT SAME MISTAKES.

[Alexis Jacobi]

BigMike has driven Age to caps-lock mania! God help us all!

[BigMike]

And what's your problem with that?

Obviously, my problem with it is: it's a false statement, one neither of us believes.

Anyway...

We been on retread mode for a while, Mike, sayin' the same things over and over, so I'll step out for a bit. Mebbe if you actually undergird your claims, I'll step back in.

Till then, this is my close...

A series of physical and material events, when no *consciousness* enters in, can only be purely deterministic (again if I understand aright). An object in motion cannot make a choice to behave differently. It has no volition.

In the determinism Mike claims to promote, it matters not one jot if consciousness enters becuz consciousness is causally inevitable. Consciousness is just another result, another event. Mike, however, is a compatibilist. In his view consciousness, which can be educated, which can evaluate, which can decide, does matter. Somehow this educable, evaluating, deciding consciousness exercises control over itself. It self-directs.

Sounds a lot like some kind of free will to me.

I have found it ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS to WATCH those who BELIEVE that they are ABSOLUTELY 'FREE' when they also ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE that A God has A plan, for them, and has 'planned' ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing out, for them.

All of you human beings, here, are continually CONTRADICTING "your" very own 'selves'.

And, the FUNNIEST PART of this is you do it when just 'trying to' argue or fight FOR your own 'current' BELIEFS and when 'trying' to' argue or fight AGAINST 'another' pre-determined free-willed human being, who also just 'currently' has an opposing, yet also unsubstantiated BELIEF/S,

LOL Absolutely EVERY one of 'you' WANTS and DESIRES to live in peace and harmony, together, as One. Yet ALL of you older ones WANT to fight and argue what you ALL had ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL AT ALL OVER what you were taught and learned, as children.

you ALL were taught, and learned, as 'unfree children' HOW to MISBEHAVE when meant-to-be 'responsible free-willed adult human beings'.

you are ALL MISSING that you were ALL pre-determined to MISBEHAVE, BECAUSE you human beings learn BEST from your OWN MISTAKES.

your OWN MISTAKES, which you are ALL SHOWING, and PROVING, here, in this forum, HELP, TREMENDOUSLY,. future human beings, and thus humanity, from making the EXACT SAME MISTAKES.

Age, this conversation is no longer constructive. Your lengthy and circular arguments offer no substantive critique, and your approach continues to derail any meaningful exchange. I’ll be adding you to my ignore list. Best of luck with your discussions.

[Age]

And what's your problem with that?

Obviously, my problem with it is: it's a false statement, one neither of us believes.

Anyway...

We been on retread mode for a while, Mike, sayin' the same things over and over, so I'll step out for a bit. Mebbe if you actually undergird your claims, I'll step back in.

Till then, this is my close...

A series of physical and material events, when no *consciousness* enters in, can only be purely deterministic (again if I understand aright). An object in motion cannot make a choice to behave differently. It has no volition.

In the determinism Mike claims to promote, it matters not one jot if consciousness enters becuz consciousness is causally inevitable. Consciousness is just another result, another event. Mike, however, is a compatibilist. In his view consciousness, which can be educated, which can evaluate, which can decide, does matter. Somehow this educable, evaluating, deciding consciousness exercises control over itself. It self-directs.

Sounds a lot like some kind of free will to me.

Henry, your persistent claim that determinism and free will are somehow being conflated in my argument is tiring and misguided. Consciousness is a deterministic phenomenon. Its ability to "evaluate" and "decide" doesn’t invoke free will; it’s the deterministic result of prior causes—experiences, genetic predispositions, environmental stimuli, and so on. Decisions arise from a web of causality, not some mystical, uncaused agency.

If you see that as "sounding like free will," then you’ve misunderstood determinism entirely. The capability of a system to process information, adapt, and respond is a product of deterministic causation—not an opening for metaphysical free will. So no, I’m not sneaking in "some kind of free will." I reject it outright. Stop misrepresenting determinism as though it’s compatible with magical thinking. If you’ve got a meaningful critique, bring it—otherwise, this loop of willful misinterpretation is getting tedious.

So, ONCE MORE, what can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN,.here, is that this one, BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY,.that it has absolutely NO faulty reasoning NOR any error in thinking and seeing, here, AT ALL.

[accelafine]

If determinism is true, as the evidence overwhelmingly supports, blame itself is meaningless because actions are the result of preceding causes.

Exactly. As you say every atom, every synapse in your brain, every fleeting thought you believe you’ve “freely” chosen is simply the inevitable consequence of these laws in motion. So, what's all this falderal about reforming the justice system? Why lambast the religious?

As you say blame itself is meaningless because everything we think, say, do, feel, is all causally inevitable. None of it can have unfolded in any other way. So why argue for a reformation which, by your admission, is impossible? Why take folks to task who, by your own admission, cannot be other than what they are?

Henry, your argument conflates determinism with fatalism, a fundamental misunderstanding. Determinism says that all events, including human actions, are caused by preceding factors. Fatalism, on the other hand, is the belief that outcomes are fixed regardless of our actions. These are not the same. Determinism recognizes that our actions, thoughts, and decisions are part of the causal chain and thus influence future outcomes.

Take learning and memory, for example. Both are physical processes governed by neural changes—strengthening synapses, forming connections, encoding experiences. These processes enable us to evaluate how our current actions will influence the future and make decisions that align with desired outcomes. While our choices are determined by prior causes, they are also informed by our capacity to predict consequences and adapt. This is why reforming the justice system or critiquing harmful beliefs is entirely compatible with determinism: these actions are themselves causes within the system, shaping better outcomes.

Blame, in the traditional moral sense, may be meaningless in a deterministic framework, but accountability isn’t. Justice can shift from retribution to prevention and rehabilitation, focusing on reducing harm and addressing root causes. My arguments for reform are part of this causal chain, aiming to influence future conditions. They’re not futile; they’re how determinism works in practice. Dismissing efforts to improve as "impossible" misunderstands that change is caused by actions in the present, which are themselves part of the deterministic web.

Now you are just playing with words. Determinism is a scientific concept. 'Fatalism' is emotional/religious. They shouldn't be used as an 'either/or'. No one said we can't learn, it's just that what we learn is predetermined.

[BigMike]

Exactly. As you say every atom, every synapse in your brain, every fleeting thought you believe you’ve “freely” chosen is simply the inevitable consequence of these laws in motion. So, what's all this falderal about reforming the justice system? Why lambast the religious?

As you say blame itself is meaningless because everything we think, say, do, feel, is all causally inevitable. None of it can have unfolded in any other way. So why argue for a reformation which, by your admission, is impossible? Why take folks to task who, by your own admission, cannot be other than what they are?

Henry, your argument conflates determinism with fatalism, a fundamental misunderstanding. Determinism says that all events, including human actions, are caused by preceding factors. Fatalism, on the other hand, is the belief that outcomes are fixed regardless of our actions. These are not the same. Determinism recognizes that our actions, thoughts, and decisions are part of the causal chain and thus influence future outcomes.

Take learning and memory, for example. Both are physical processes governed by neural changes—strengthening synapses, forming connections, encoding experiences. These processes enable us to evaluate how our current actions will influence the future and make decisions that align with desired outcomes. While our choices are determined by prior causes, they are also informed by our capacity to predict consequences and adapt. This is why reforming the justice system or critiquing harmful beliefs is entirely compatible with determinism: these actions are themselves causes within the system, shaping better outcomes.

Blame, in the traditional moral sense, may be meaningless in a deterministic framework, but accountability isn’t. Justice can shift from retribution to prevention and rehabilitation, focusing on reducing harm and addressing root causes. My arguments for reform are part of this causal chain, aiming to influence future conditions. They’re not futile; they’re how determinism works in practice. Dismissing efforts to improve as "impossible" misunderstands that change is caused by actions in the present, which are themselves part of the deterministic web.

Now you are just playing with words. Determinism is scientific. 'Fatalism' is emotional/religious. They shouldn't be used as an 'either/or'. No one said we can't learn, it's just that what we learn is predetermined.

Accelafine, I’m not “playing with words”—I’m clarifying an essential distinction that seems lost in your response. Determinism and fatalism are entirely different concepts, and conflating them muddies the discussion. Determinism is rooted in cause and effect, where actions and outcomes are shaped by preceding events. Fatalism, by contrast, implies inevitability regardless of intervening causes. This is not an emotional or religious distinction; it’s a conceptual one with profound implications.

Yes, what we learn is shaped by prior causes, but the process of learning itself—analyzing, adapting, and applying knowledge—is also part of the deterministic chain. This is why reform and progress are possible: the deterministic web includes the capacity for change through action.

Your attempt to blur the lines between determinism and fatalism is not a rebuttal; it’s a failure to engage with the mechanics of how deterministic systems actually operate. If you can’t see the difference, perhaps it’s time to step back and examine the argument more carefully.

[Age]

Age, if my reasoning contains flaws, those flaws too are causally inevitable, as is the process of refining or correcting them over time. That’s the beauty of determinism—it accounts for the iterative nature of understanding and growth. If you can point out specific examples of faulty reasoning, I welcome it, as part of the deterministic process that shapes our interaction and my development.

But, ONCE AGAIN, and as I have done so in the past, when I pointed out specific examples of your faulty reasoning you are, and were, NOT able to see, recognize, and admit them, and AGAIN this is because of determinism, itself, or in other words, because of your own personal past experiences.

Yes, my belief that my reasoning is sound at this moment is the result of my past experiences, knowledge, and interactions.

And so to is your INABILITY to 'look at' and 'see' things, FULLY, here, is the result of your past experience, knowledge, and interactions.

WHY do you think is the reason WHY you human beings, in the days when this is being written, have NOT YET, also, caught up with what the actual irrefutable Truth of things are, AS WELL?

The answer is BECAUSE of your own personal 'past experiences', OBVIOUSLY.

Also, and by the way, even though I KEEP INFORMING you people that while you KEEP BELIEVING and PRE/ASSUMING things, that doing so will PREVENT and even STOP you from learning and seeing what the actual Truths are, in Life, you, still, INSIST on having BELIEFS.

However, BECAUSE I ALREADY KNOW WHY ALL of you human beings are 'the way' that you ALL are, and thus KNOW WHY you olde ones will just NOT LISTEN, then ALL is WELL, and GOOD.

If I am wrong, then exposing that error would also be part of the causal web, contributing to the evolution of my understanding.

LOL I have ALREADY exposed some of your errors, but, AGAIN, you were just NOT 'looking' and 'seeing', and this is BECAUSE you do NOT want to 'see' the error in, and of, 'your ways'.

Which explains WHY you have not been 'LISTENING', here.

Even a very quick 'look' above here one can VERY CLEARLY 'SEE' that you will NOT use the word 'my' on front of the words 'error' or 'faulty reasoning'. And this is because of an 'underlying BELIEF', here, which, AGAIN, is due SOLELY to your own personal 'past experiences', or what I call your pre-determining factors, which some might know as 'determinism', itself.

The VERY REASON WHY you do NOT 'see' your own faulty reasoning is because pre-determined 'past experiences' have NOT allowed you to BELIEVE that you have.

But this was just a common occurrence among you adult human beings, anyway. And, AGAIN, this is just because of your, common, past experiences. Being taught to 'debate' was just a huge contributing factor which led up towards this kind of, very common, faulty reasoning among you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written.

So by all means, present your examples, and let’s see how causality unfolds from there.

your own personal definition of the 'free will' words, which has obviously come from your own personal pre-determined 'past experiences', is NOT one that could even fit in with nor work with what is actually True, in Life. Therefore, your own personal conclusion and, absolute, BELIEF, that 'free will' does NOT exist is absolutely True, and Right, but from your OWN perspective, ONLY.

However, because your perspective, view, and/or BELIEF, here, does NOT align with what is actually True, and Right, in Life, or with 'Reality', Itself, then your view/s, here, are 'FAULTY', because they are based on 'faulty reasoning'.

BUT, let 'us' NOT forget that this is NEVER ABOUT 'you', "yourself", but ABOUT 'your past experiences' and 'your past learnings and teachings'. That is; what 'you' have been 'taught', and thus 'learned', was Wrong. Whereas, 'you', "yourself", NEVER could be nor NEVER were Wrong.

Age, if you have specific examples of what you believe are flaws in my reasoning or definitions, present them clearly and concisely.

The FLAW in 'your reasoning' is using your own, not yet agreed upon, definition for the 'free will' terminology or phrase, and then concluding, all by "yourself" that 'free will, absolutely does NOT exist.

Now, if you KNEW where absolutely ALL of your thinking and reasoning, here, came from, exactly, then you would ALSO ALREADY KNOW WHY ALL of your Wrong and FAULTY knowledge and reasoning exists, and persists

Your lengthy digressions on "faulty reasoning" and personal experiences have yet to demonstrate where my argument breaks down.

AGAIN, one can NOT learn NOR see while they are CLOSED, and thus BLIND. Having and holding onto a BELIEF is what is CLOSES you OFF, COMPLETELY, here.

If you claim that my perspective is shaped by pre-determined factors, I agree—that’s the premise of determinism. However, pointing out that I might be shaped by causality doesn’t refute my argument; it supports it. The question is whether your criticism provides new evidence or logical reasoning to challenge my stance. If not, then this is just rhetoric, not substantive critique.

If you, REALLY, still, can NOT see and comprehend WHERE and WHEN I have been AGREEING WITH you and BACKING UP and SUPPORTING 'your stance', here, then you are MORE CLOSED than I first realized

So, let’s skip the philosophical theatrics. If you believe you have evidence or a coherent argument, state it directly, without unnecessary tangents.

1. I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE ABSOLUTELY ANY thing, here.

2. I have INFORMED you MANY TIMES OVER, ALREADY, your own PERSONAL definition for the 'free will' words IS UNWORKABLE.

What you are, more or less, just 'trying to' say and claim here is; 'the definition of 'free will' is a non existing, therefore 'free will' does not exist. Full stop'.

This, ONCE AGAIN, iS 'faulty reasoning'.

Now, HOW MANY TIMES do I have to RE-REPEAT this EXACT SAME thing before you can SEE, RECOGNIZE, and UNDERSTAND it?

[accelafine]

Henry, your argument conflates determinism with fatalism, a fundamental misunderstanding. Determinism says that all events, including human actions, are caused by preceding factors. Fatalism, on the other hand, is the belief that outcomes are fixed regardless of our actions. These are not the same. Determinism recognizes that our actions, thoughts, and decisions are part of the causal chain and thus influence future outcomes.

Take learning and memory, for example. Both are physical processes governed by neural changes—strengthening synapses, forming connections, encoding experiences. These processes enable us to evaluate how our current actions will influence the future and make decisions that align with desired outcomes. While our choices are determined by prior causes, they are also informed by our capacity to predict consequences and adapt. This is why reforming the justice system or critiquing harmful beliefs is entirely compatible with determinism: these actions are themselves causes within the system, shaping better outcomes.

Blame, in the traditional moral sense, may be meaningless in a deterministic framework, but accountability isn’t. Justice can shift from retribution to prevention and rehabilitation, focusing on reducing harm and addressing root causes. My arguments for reform are part of this causal chain, aiming to influence future conditions. They’re not futile; they’re how determinism works in practice. Dismissing efforts to improve as "impossible" misunderstands that change is caused by actions in the present, which are themselves part of the deterministic web.

Now you are just playing with words. Determinism is scientific. 'Fatalism' is emotional/religious. They shouldn't be used as an 'either/or'. No one said we can't learn, it's just that what we learn is predetermined.

Accelafine, I’m not “playing with words”—I’m clarifying an essential distinction that seems lost in your response. Determinism and fatalism are entirely different concepts, and conflating them muddies the discussion. Determinism is rooted in cause and effect, where actions and outcomes are shaped by preceding events. Fatalism, by contrast, implies inevitability regardless of intervening causes. This is not an emotional or religious distinction; it’s a conceptual one with profound implications.

Yes, what we learn is shaped by prior causes, but the process of learning itself—analyzing, adapting, and applying knowledge—is also part of the deterministic chain. This is why reform and progress are possible: the deterministic web includes the capacity for change through action.

Your attempt to blur the lines between determinism and fatalism is not a rebuttal; it’s a failure to engage with the mechanics of how deterministic systems actually operate. If you can’t see the difference, perhaps it’s time to step back and examine the argument more carefully.

Yep. Just what I said...The rest is you coninuing to contradict your own position.

[BigMike]

Now you are just playing with words. Determinism is scientific. 'Fatalism' is emotional/religious. They shouldn't be used as an 'either/or'. No one said we can't learn, it's just that what we learn is predetermined.

Accelafine, I’m not “playing with words”—I’m clarifying an essential distinction that seems lost in your response. Determinism and fatalism are entirely different concepts, and conflating them muddies the discussion. Determinism is rooted in cause and effect, where actions and outcomes are shaped by preceding events. Fatalism, by contrast, implies inevitability regardless of intervening causes. This is not an emotional or religious distinction; it’s a conceptual one with profound implications.

Yes, what we learn is shaped by prior causes, but the process of learning itself—analyzing, adapting, and applying knowledge—is also part of the deterministic chain. This is why reform and progress are possible: the deterministic web includes the capacity for change through action.

Your attempt to blur the lines between determinism and fatalism is not a rebuttal; it’s a failure to engage with the mechanics of how deterministic systems actually operate. If you can’t see the difference, perhaps it’s time to step back and examine the argument more carefully.

Yep. Just what I said...The rest is you coninuing to contradict your own position.

Accelafine, if you believe I’m contradicting my position, then point out the specific contradiction instead of vaguely asserting it. My position remains consistent: determinism explains how learning, adaptation, and action arise within a causal framework. It does not equate to fatalism, nor does it imply inaction or inevitability devoid of influence.

If you’re unwilling or unable to articulate where you think my argument falters, this conversation becomes little more than hand-waving. Dismissive one-liners don’t cut it—engage with the ideas or move on.

[Age]

determinism, in philosophy and science, [is] the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.

free will, in philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe.

WHY do you say and claim, 'in philosophy and science', for, exactly?

Obviously if ANY one 'looked into' your claim, here, enough, then what is SEEN is the absolute ARROGANCE and Wrongness in the claim.

But, if 'we' want to USE these definitions, then, OBVIOUSLY, 'free will' does NOT even exist.

And, even if ANY one 'tried to' argue against or refute this definition of 'free will', then they are PROVING, IRREFUTABLY, that that definition of 'free will' does NOT exist.

So, what 'we' are LEFT WITH is a term, phrase, and definition of a NON existing thing, which has NEVER EVER even existed. Or, in other words, what 'we' have had here, all along, is an UNWORKABLE terminology AND definition.

If, say, I spend my time contemplating what the proper course of action is (in my family, in society, etc.) and after great expenditure of energy and time then make a decision, of course one will say “No other choice was possible!” since that choice is now, as it were, set in stone, woven into the fabric of reality.

But all the choices I made that prepared me for the specific choice — it is this that concerns us.

The choices 'you' made, may well concern 'you', and some others, but your choices certainly do NOT concern 'me', here. So, who and/or is the 'us' word in 'your sentence' referring to, exactly?

Those took shape within a context, certainly, and that context is “the causal world”, but what is to be gained by asserting my moral choices do not arise in me as choice? This is what I do not get (about Big Mike’s scientisic fundamentalism).

BUT, "big mike" is NOT claiming, asserting, nor even just saying that 'your, moral, choices' do not arise in 'you' 'as choice'. "big mike" is just saying, and insisting, that 'your choices' are not made ABSOLUTELY FREELY. Or, in other words, not made independently of any prior event or state of the universe. Which is; EXACTLY the definition that you CHOSE to USE for the 'free will' words.

What advantage is to be gained if l or anyone tells me: “You could have done nothing differently” and (seemingly) that I do not have significant access to agency? And that I am not to be held accountable for my choices when I face their consequences, as I and we all must face inevitably?

The 'advantage' that "big mike" BELIEVES is that once you people come to REALIZE, COMPREHEND, and UNDERSTAND that you have NO ABILITY TO CHOOSE, ABSOLUTELY FREELY, nor ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY prior event or state of the Universe, then you will, or will hopefully, change the 'events or states', which have 'caused' you to do the Wrong things that you ALL of you adult human beings do, in Life.

Now, what really messes with Mike’s head is the supposed possibility of a supernatural agency that might act in our (largely) causally determined world.

If you say so. But, I think it is usually, best to ask 'the other' who and/or what 'it' is, exactly, which is, supposedly, 'messing with their heads'. But, if you BELIEVE that you are ABLE to do this ABSOLUTELY Accurately and Correctly, then by all means keep on doing it.

That is to say that if it were possible, through appeal to a divinity or by some magical agency, interject into the causal patterns a movement that influences the flow of events as if from outside the “system”.

In the larger analysis, and with some “metaphysical distance”, this hallucinated possibility is (perhaps) what ultimately BigMike objects to.

The issue is that there is no way to describe how some such (supernatural) potency, without materiality, could act on what is material. What is the contact point?

The answer although BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, and which is HOW 'I' CONTROL ALL of 'you', is not necessarily SEEN, AT FIRST.

[accelafine]

Accelafine, I’m not “playing with words”—I’m clarifying an essential distinction that seems lost in your response. Determinism and fatalism are entirely different concepts, and conflating them muddies the discussion. Determinism is rooted in cause and effect, where actions and outcomes are shaped by preceding events. Fatalism, by contrast, implies inevitability regardless of intervening causes. This is not an emotional or religious distinction; it’s a conceptual one with profound implications.

Yes, what we learn is shaped by prior causes, but the process of learning itself—analyzing, adapting, and applying knowledge—is also part of the deterministic chain. This is why reform and progress are possible: the deterministic web includes the capacity for change through action.

Your attempt to blur the lines between determinism and fatalism is not a rebuttal; it’s a failure to engage with the mechanics of how deterministic systems actually operate. If you can’t see the difference, perhaps it’s time to step back and examine the argument more carefully.

Yep. Just what I said...The rest is you coninuing to contradict your own position.

Accelafine, if you believe I’m contradicting my position, then point out the specific contradiction instead of vaguely asserting it. My position remains consistent: determinism explains how learning, adaptation, and action arise within a causal framework. It does not equate to fatalism, nor does it imply inaction or inevitability devoid of influence.

If you’re unwilling or unable to articulate where you think my argument falters, this conversation becomes little more than hand-waving. Dismissive one-liners don’t cut it—engage with the ideas or move on.

I can't very well do that when you insist on misrepresenting my position and making silly assumptions. I thought my succinct comment was sufficient. I'm not even arguing with you. I have always instinctively felt that free will doesn't exist, even before I knew people argued about it or why, or that there was science behind it. You just lose me when you rabbit on about changing the legal system and prevention. That's where your logical, sound arguments turn into mush, because you are going from science into the realm of personal belief.

[Noax]

What is it about "new" that makes a causal chain bad?

First of all, you make it sound like cause is a linear chain instead of a network. Most effects have countless causes.
I used your example. The wife cannot have initiated a causal chain by taking 3 of the 5 dollars socked in the drawer. Part of the cause of here doing that would be you putting the 5 there in the first place, something prior to her making that decision.

As for bad, imagine trying to use free will to cross the street. If prior state cannot be part of the cause, then it cannot be used. You have to just guess and not look both ways first.


This topic is moving way to fast for me and I've not read any of it except the part I initially noticed. Apologies for the derailment. We can isolate it into its own topic if that would be better.

[BigMike]

Yep. Just what I said...The rest is you coninuing to contradict your own position.

Accelafine, if you believe I’m contradicting my position, then point out the specific contradiction instead of vaguely asserting it. My position remains consistent: determinism explains how learning, adaptation, and action arise within a causal framework. It does not equate to fatalism, nor does it imply inaction or inevitability devoid of influence.

If you’re unwilling or unable to articulate where you think my argument falters, this conversation becomes little more than hand-waving. Dismissive one-liners don’t cut it—engage with the ideas or move on.

I can't very well do that when you insist on misrepresenting my position and making silly assumptions. I thought my succinct comment was sufficient. I'm not even arguing with you. I have always instinctively felt that free will doesn't exist, even before I knew people argued about it or why, or that there was science behind it. You just lose me when you rabbit on about changing the legal system and prevention. That's where your logical, sound arguments turn into mush.

If you instinctively feel that free will doesn’t exist, then you already grasp the core premise that human actions are causally determined. But what you seem to miss is that changing the legal system and focusing on prevention are not contradictions to determinism—they are applications of it.

In a deterministic framework, reforming the justice system isn’t about assigning metaphysical blame; it’s about understanding the causes of harmful behavior and intervening to prevent it from recurring. Prevention and rehabilitation are just as causally inevitable as the actions they aim to address. Far from being "mush," this approach aligns with the understanding that our actions, as determined as they are, can still shape future outcomes.

If you find this part of the argument unclear or unconvincing, then explain where the logic breaks down instead of dismissing it outright. Otherwise, it seems you’re mistaking discomfort with the implications for flaws in the reasoning.

[Age]

BigMike has driven Age to caps-lock mania! God help us all!

LOL "big mike' CAUSED this.

Also NOTICED is HOW and WHEN one can NOT actually counter NOR refute against what I say and point out, or can NOT back up, support, nor clarify what they "them" 'self' say and claim, then they just 'try to' 'criticize' some other Truly UNIMPORTANT thing that I do.

[Age]

Obviously, my problem with it is: it's a false statement, one neither of us believes.

Anyway...

We been on retread mode for a while, Mike, sayin' the same things over and over, so I'll step out for a bit. Mebbe if you actually undergird your claims, I'll step back in.

Till then, this is my close...



In the determinism Mike claims to promote, it matters not one jot if consciousness enters becuz consciousness is causally inevitable. Consciousness is just another result, another event. Mike, however, is a compatibilist. In his view consciousness, which can be educated, which can evaluate, which can decide, does matter. Somehow this educable, evaluating, deciding consciousness exercises control over itself. It self-directs.

Sounds a lot like some kind of free will to me.

I have found it ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS to WATCH those who BELIEVE that they are ABSOLUTELY 'FREE' when they also ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE that A God has A plan, for them, and has 'planned' ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing out, for them.

All of you human beings, here, are continually CONTRADICTING "your" very own 'selves'.

And, the FUNNIEST PART of this is you do it when just 'trying to' argue or fight FOR your own 'current' BELIEFS and when 'trying' to' argue or fight AGAINST 'another' pre-determined free-willed human being, who also just 'currently' has an opposing, yet also unsubstantiated BELIEF/S,

LOL Absolutely EVERY one of 'you' WANTS and DESIRES to live in peace and harmony, together, as One. Yet ALL of you older ones WANT to fight and argue what you ALL had ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL AT ALL OVER what you were taught and learned, as children.

you ALL were taught, and learned, as 'unfree children' HOW to MISBEHAVE when meant-to-be 'responsible free-willed adult human beings'.

you are ALL MISSING that you were ALL pre-determined to MISBEHAVE, BECAUSE you human beings learn BEST from your OWN MISTAKES.

your OWN MISTAKES, which you are ALL SHOWING, and PROVING, here, in this forum, HELP, TREMENDOUSLY,. future human beings, and thus humanity, from making the EXACT SAME MISTAKES.

Age, this conversation is no longer constructive. Your lengthy and circular arguments offer no substantive critique, and your approach continues to derail any meaningful exchange. I’ll be adding you to my ignore list. Best of luck with your discussions.

LOL What 'we' have here is ANOTHER who when FINALLY REALIZES 'the point', which I have been making and OBVIOUSLY can NOT refute it, puts me on their ignore list.

Also, and VERY LAUGHINGLY, this one talks about my, supposed, circular arguments derailing its meaningful exchange.

LOL This one has been USING different threads to just 'try to' get its EXACT SAME ONE BELIEF, here, accepted and agreed by others.

When has this one has a so-called 'meaningful exchange' with another, here?