Responses to Determinism Critiques

I choose to respond to those who say I am not free to choose to respond.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• determinism
• free
• will
• philosophy

[NativeNewMexican]

@pneumatictrousers Science most certainly does NOT tend to lean towards determinism. The more science learns, the more science figures out what we don't know. Experiments like the double slot experiment indicate that intelligent life and the devices it uses to measure things actually change the world around us simply by looking. I didn't make an ad hominem fallacy, I called you a name. I didn't discredit you because of it, but it has validity. Craig denies evidence as do you.

[pneumatictrousers]

@NativeNewMexican Interesting spin but I'm afraid still not sufficient as proof for free will. I don't know where past, present, future came into this discussion to be honest. Science allows room for error so nothing is considered 100%. Science does tend to lean much more towards determinism due to what data and technology is available. It does not discount the possibility of free will but the burden is on those that make such a claim. An ad hominem fallacy displays the weakness of your position

[NativeNewMexican]

@pneumatictrousers How about you watch another video on YouTube: watch?v=la31lOcbDHc

[NativeNewMexican]

@pneumatictrousers The statement "All scientific evidence indicates" doesn't HAVE to include "so far" it's assumed. Only a semantics nitpicker would think otherwise. Your jibber jabber attempting to sound intelligent boils down to this: you have no evidence that determinism exists, and you think that just because all scientific evidence so far showing that it doesn't exist is insufficient for you to deny it. It's like arguing with William Lane Craig.

[pneumatictrousers]

@NativeNewMexican That was not mentioned so your mind is filling in the gaps. There is an informal fallacy of a straw man being set up as a premise. Your support argument is not congruent to a logical argument. Your last statement is semantic infiltration followed by a contraction. Thus, your conclusion doesn't follow the premise and instead of the previous false dilemma has now become a false compromise. Realize, the scientific method is rational and allows room for error. Please prove freewill

[pneumatictrousers]

This video has a LOT of fallacies and plain silliness. The argument against determinism still has not been lifted or proved incorrect.

[NativeNewMexican]

@pneumatictrousers Non-existent, future, or unknown stuff isn't scientific evidence. The statement implies that we are only talking about things that HAVE been tested and ARE providing evidence, not ANYTHING IN THE WORLD. I don't care how you want to interpret the terms, but if you're advocating any sort of determinism that actually provides for free will, then I don't have an outright disagreement.

[pneumatictrousers]

@NativeNewMexican I have trouble with some of your statements which are introducing fallacies. For one, there is no way you can know "All scientific evidence" since you are not omnipotent or omnipresent. You also appeared to have created a false dilemma in another post on how you defined free will and determinism then said you personally choose free will. I find it difficult after having read so much science and philosophy to be able to be in denial of determinism, which seems more ego related.

[DeterministicOne]

@NativeNewMexican Looked it up. I think you are making a leap. Perhaps you can explain how Gödel's incompleteness theorem destroys the "all events have sufficient causes" perspective.

[NativeNewMexican]

@DeterministicOne Please look up Gödel's incompleteness theorem, it destroys the "all events have sufficient causes" perspective.