Determinism: the holy grail of Academia.

[Curious George]

I think I know what you are implying but something happens or it doesn't, once it happens that's it, it happened. Once an event happens you can't go back and change it because time only moves in one direction.

That does not matter here.

 

[Curious George]

Don't hold your breath. I've asked this question many times and have never received a satisfactory answer. In fact, most replies are end runs around the subject, veering off into irrelevances so unconnected that even the poster doesn't know where he's going.

A word of advice: don't be drawn into fallacious arguments---unfortunately, their creator is often unaware he's using them. If you do pursue the subject, stay focused on your question and watch out for any reply that doesn't speak directly to it. Particularly irksome are those that try to switch the burden of proof.

.

Fallacious arguments like the circular one for determinism?

 

[JustWondering]

That does not matter here.

Why?

 

[Curious George]

Why?

Because it would be begging the question. Assuming that nothing can happen differently than it did is in effect assuming determinism.

Moreover, it just evades answering the question.

 

[JustWondering]

Because it would be begging the question. Assuming that nothing can happen differently than it did is in effect assuming determinism.

Moreover, it just evades answering the question.

I have yet to hear a rational alternative to determinism. We live in an ordered universe where cause and effect determines events. How do you propose the universe works?

 

[Skwim]

Fallacious arguments like the circular one for determinism?

I don't doubt any fool could make one up, but what do you have in mind?
.

 

[Curious George]

I have yet to hear a rational alternative to determinism. We live in an ordered universe where cause and effect determines events. How do you propose the universe works?

That is a important but tangential to the discussion at hand. More to the point, it still does not answer my question.

 

[Curious George]

I don't doubt any fool could make one up, but what do you have in mind?
.

What do I have in mind for what? O was commenting on your advice not to get sucked into falacious arguments. Determinism is a circular argument therefore fallacious. Unless you have a reason to believe it is not?

 

[JustWondering]

That is a important but tangential to the discussion at hand. More to the point, it still does not answer my question.

I answered your question, you just didn't like my answer. Now answer my question. If determinism doesn't exist, how does the universe work?

 

[Curious George]

Yet if you didn't make a basket is it because you did not throw the ball?

But I did make a basket.

I think I know what you are implying but something happens or it doesn't, once it happens that's it, it happened. Once an event happens you can't go back and change it because time only moves in one direction.

I have yet to hear a rational alternative to determinism. We live in an ordered universe where cause and effect determines events. How do you propose the universe works?

It is a yes or no question. How have any of these quotes answered the question?

 

[JustWondering]

It is a yes or no question. How have any of these quotes answered the question?

Obviously if I don't even throw a ball to make a basket I won't make a basket. How do you propose the universe functions if determinism doesn't exist?

 

[Skwim]

What do I have in mind for what?

Well obviously you must have had something in mind when you said,

"Fallacious arguments like the circular one for determinism."​

So, I'm wondering what circular argument for determinism you have in mind.

Determinism is a circular argument therefore fallacious.

Really! Then I suppose you regard sports as a circular argument and therefore fallacious. And love as a circular argument and therefore fallacious. And taxes as a circular argument and therefore fallacious. How about ghosts? Are they a circular argument and therefore fallacious.

.

 

[Curious George]

Obviously if I don't even throw a ball to make a basket I won't make a basket. How do you propose the universe functions if determinism doesn't exist?

Determinism existing or not existing does not preclude cause from existing or not existing.

 

[Curious George]

Well obviously you must have had something in mind when you said,

"Fallacious arguments like the circular one for determinism."​

So, I'm wondering what circular argument for determinism you have in mind.


Really! Then I suppose you regard sports as a circular argument and therefore fallacious. And love as a circular argument and therefore fallacious. And taxes as a circular argument and therefore fallacious. How about ghosts? Are they a circular argument and therefore fallacious.

.

I don't know, do those topics assume themselves for support? Or can they be deduced?

 

[JustWondering]

Determinism existing or not existing does not preclude cause from existing or not existing.

Simple observation shows that events need a cause to occur. That is the foundation of determinism as I understand it. You are claiming that determinism is not true therefore events do not need causes to occur. By your "logic" I can make baskets without even touching a basketball. Care to explain how that is possible?

 

[Curious George]

Obviously if I don't even throw a ball to make a basket I won't make a basket.

So why would you assume throwing the ball was the cause of you making the basket? You could alter the statement so that you said throwing the ball correctly was the cause of the making the basket, but that would be begging the question again. You making the basket was never a choice or a matter of will in the first place. You throwing the ball was just that, you throwing the ball. It was not a cause of anything. Legally, we can say it was the "but for" cause, so that you can be blamed for missing if you missed or acclaimed for making it if you made it. But there is no deductive reasoning by which we can conclude that you throwing the ball was a cause.

 

[Curious George]

Simple observation shows that events need a cause to occur. That is the foundation of determinism as I understand it. You are claiming that determinism is not true therefore events do not need causes to occur. By your "logic" I can make baskets without even touching a basketball. Care to explain how that is possible?

Simple observation shows that we have free will. That doesn't stop you from concluding the opposite.

 

[Repox]

I have already presented a theory that refutes freewill with evidence. Which you continue to ignore and refuse to address. You have not addressed any of the points I've brought up, you have not explained how your version of "freewill" works. All you have presented for your position is that you believe freewill is a magical ability that is untethered to the universe we are a part of because of your completely unproven, unverifiable religious beliefs. Since it is clear that you do not intend to have an intellectually honest debate about this, I am not going to bother discussing it further with you. Have a nice day.

Here is your proof. "How the universe works as proven by science is my evidence!" Yours statement is not evidence. Any one can make such a statement. Yes, science has studied the universe and has made various conclusions. The most important study for science would be a theory and evidence demonstrating how the universe came from nothing. Scientific studies show how God did it. God created physical laws and used them to execute his design for the universe. To refute this profound statement you must present evidence for those physical laws and the design for the universe deriving from natural causes. The key is who or what created the universe? God created the universe with Big Bang. Therefore, everything which followed the big bang was created by God.

Science can claim to have discovered physical laws, and therefore have an understanding of natural processes, and apply principles of those processes to justify a universe without God, but what they have really done is glorify God by showing the marvelous nature of God's design.

 

[Nakosis]

My statement is about what Academia believes about determinism. Generally, most educated people understand the meaning of determinism. Having spent many years in the academic community, I am certain most professors believe in determinism as an explanation of human behavior, especially those in the scientific community.

“He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches.” - Bernard Shaw

I don't know most professors so I'll have to take your word for that, but so what? A person can be a good coach but not necessarily good themselves at football. A good teacher should be teaching you to think for yourself, not what to think. I've always taught my kids to question everything I tell them and verify it for themselves. I have my opinion about things and they don't always agree. If these professor expect you to blindly accept everything they claim they are probably not very good professors.

When I find my own kids question me, argue with me, that's when I feel I've done a pretty good job.

 

[JustWondering]

So why would you assume throwing the ball was the cause of you making the basket? You could alter the statement so that you said throwing the ball correctly was the cause of the making the basket, but that would be begging the question again. You making the basket was never a choice or a matter of will in the first place. You throwing the ball was just that, you throwing the ball. It was not a cause of anything. Legally, we can say it was the "but for" cause, so that you van be blamed for missing if you missed or acclaimed for making it if you made it. But there is no deductive reasoning by which we can conclude that you throwing the ball was a cause.

My throwing a ball WOULD be the cause for the ball going through the hoop. Now answer my question please. If the events taking place in our universe don't occur due to cause and effect, why do events happen? If time was erratic instead of moving forward at a set pace and cause and effect didn't exist there would be nothing but complete and utter chaos. Perhaps our universe was birthed from some kind of chaos like you are suggesting but our universe itself is not chaotic. Our universe has order, it has laws that cannot be broken.