Determinism: the holy grail of Academia.

[JustWondering]

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.

 

[Skwim]

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

They aren't topics, they're things, grammatically classified as nouns, just as determinism is a thing.

sport
spôrt/
noun
plural noun: sports

1. an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

love
ləv/
noun
noun: love; plural noun: loves

1. an intense feeling of deep affection.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tax
taks/
noun
plural noun: taxes

1. a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ghost
ɡōst/
noun
plural noun: ghosts

1. an apparition of a dead person that is believed to appear or become manifest to the living, typically as a nebulous image.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

de·ter·min·ism
dəˈtərməˌnizəm/
nounPhilosophy
noun: determinism

the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.​

This isn't to say these can't be topics of discussion or argument, but as nouns they certainly don't stand as circular arguments and are therefore fallacious as you claim determinism is.
First and foremost determinism is a thing, a doctrine. "The doctrine that all events . . . ," Now, if you don't believe the substance of the doctrine is true, fine, but that doesn't make the doctrine an argument. No doctrine is an argument,

A doctrine is simply

doc·trine
ˈdäktrən/
noun
noun: doctrine; plural noun: doctrines
a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.​

On the other hand, an argument is

ar·gu·ment
ˈärɡyəmənt/
noun
noun: argument; plural noun: arguments
1.an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.
​

In any case, I'm still waiting to hear what circular argument for determinism you have in mind.

.

 

[JustWondering]

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

Do computers have "freewill"?

 

[Repox]

That's the best reply ever.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

At this point I just assume the universe has always existed in one form or another. There is evidence of a prior universe. So things didn't start with this "Big Bang" at least. Or lets say even some type of intelligence started the whole thing off eons ago. That doesn't mean any of the various religions that exist possess any knowledge of what this intelligence was or even if it is still around.

Since there is no evidence for it, science makes no claims about what caused the Big Bang. Calling that cause God is just saying you don't know either.

 

[Nakosis]

Do computers have "freewill"?

They can act autonomously. In other words they can act independent of their programming.

 

[Curious George]

My throwing a ball WOULD be the cause for the ball going through the hoop.

Asserting it as such does not make it so.

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?

By effect, choice, or randomness.

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.

Not necessarily. It would just mean that a complete and utter chaos is possible.

 

[Curious George]

They aren't topics, they're things, grammatically classified as nouns, just as determinism is a thing.

sport
spôrt/
noun
plural noun: sports

1. an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

love
ləv/
noun
noun: love; plural noun: loves

1. an intense feeling of deep affection.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tax
taks/
noun
plural noun: taxes

1. a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ghost
ɡōst/
noun
plural noun: ghosts

1. an apparition of a dead person that is believed to appear or become manifest to the living, typically as a nebulous image.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

de·ter·min·ism
dəˈtərməˌnizəm/
nounPhilosophy
noun: determinism

the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.​

This isn't to say these can't be topics of discussion or argument, but as nouns they certainly don't stand as circular arguments and are therefore fallacious as you claim determinism is.
First and foremost determinism is a thing, a doctrine. "The doctrine that all events . . . ," Now, if you don't believe the substance of the doctrine is true, fine, but that doesn't make the doctrine an argument. No doctrine is an argument,

A doctrine is simply

doc·trine
ˈdäktrən/
noun
noun: doctrine; plural noun: doctrines
a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.​

On the other hand, an argument is

ar·gu·ment
ˈärɡyəmənt/
noun
noun: argument; plural noun: arguments
1.an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.
​

In any case, I'm still waiting to hear what circular argument for determinism you have in mind.

.

This makes little to no sense. Of course they are all arguments. Their definitions are assertions regarding what they are. While you can try to pretend that these arguments are just premises, there is reasoning for such definitions. Either these definitions are true or false and to assert one is true is to assert the reasoning behind it is true.

 

[Curious George]

Do computers have "freewill"?

I would say the computer as we recognize them do not have the ability to express free will. So, no.

That is a very different question than can computers have free will.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The most important study for science would be a theory and evidence demonstrating how the universe came from nothing.

That's only one of the candidate hypothesis for the origin of the universe.

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.

You've made what you consider a factual claim. The burden of proof is yours. Nobody need disprove unsupported claims.

 

[JustWondering]

Asserting it as such does not make it so.

Balls don't jump through hoops on their own. Simply saying "nah uh!" to my arguments doesn't make for a good debate.

By effect, choice, or randomness.

Can you give real world examples of each of the above?

Not necessarily. It would just mean that a complete and utter chaos is possible.

Perhaps, but we don't see that in our universe, which was my point. Our universe has rules.

 

[JustWondering]

I would say the computer as we recognize them do not have the ability to express free will. So, no.

That is a very different question than can computers have free will.

How would you describe freewill and how could computers have it?

 

[Skwim]

This makes little to no sense. Of course they are all arguments. Their definitions are assertions regarding what they are. While you can try to pretend that these arguments are just premises, there is reasoning for such definitions. Either these definitions are true or false and to assert one is true is to assert the reasoning behind it is true.

*sigh* One can only try I guess.

.

 

[Repox]

At this point I just assume the universe has always existed in one form or another. There is evidence of a prior universe. So things didn't start with this "Big Bang" at least. Or lets say even some type of intelligence started the whole thing off eons ago. That doesn't mean any of the various religions that exist possess any knowledge of what this intelligence was or even if it is still around.

Since there is no evidence for it, science makes no claims about what caused the Big Bang. Calling that cause God is just saying you don't know either.

 

[Repox]

That's only one of the candidate hypothesis for the origin of the universe.



You've made what you consider a factual claim. The burden of proof is yours. Nobody need disprove unsupported claims.

What are the other hypotheses for the origin of the universe? Science can only explain processes, it cannot explain the beginning of time, which is the big bang.
I have not proposed a scientific explanation or theory for the universe. I have consistently claimed God did it, but, of course, there is no material proof for supernatural beings. Read the Old Testament, there you find encounters with God with explanations. I am certain God created the universe. If not, what caused it?

At this point I just assume the universe has always existed in one form or another. There is evidence of a prior universe. So things didn't start with this "Big Bang" at least. Or lets say even some type of intelligence started the whole thing off eons ago. That doesn't mean any of the various religions that exist possess any knowledge of what this intelligence was or even if it is still around.

Since there is no evidence for it, science makes no claims about what caused the Big Bang. Calling that cause God is just saying you don't know either.

There is no evidence for a prior universe. If there is and I missed it, post it. I am certain God created the universe.

 

[Nakosis]

What are the other hypotheses for the origin of the universe? Science can only explain processes, it cannot explain the beginning of time, which is the big bang.
I have not proposed a scientific explanation or theory for the universe. I have consistently claim God did it, but, of course, there is no material proof for supernatural beings. Read the Old Testament, there you find encounters with God with explanations. I am certain God created the universe. If not, what caused it?

Working on it.
Becoming God

There is no evidence for a prior universe. If there is and I missed it, post it. I am certain God created the universe.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/04/scientists-find-imprint-universe-existed-big-bang

 

[Repox]

Working on it.
Becoming God



http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/04/scientists-find-imprint-universe-existed-big-bang

Very interesting. Enjoyed reading the article. Those apparent particles are based on speculation, and other scientists disagree. We await confirmation, but, based on the dismal amount of evidence, there doesn't appear to be much hope. Even if it were true, we still have the beginning of everything issue to deal with, unless, we can prove our material universe, or other material universes had no beginning. The no beginning proposition is difficult if not impossible to imagine. It infers a material world without laws of entropy or without matter and energy. Such a condition is purely imaginary. The time line will come back on you every time, ha. ha.

 

[JustWondering]

Working on it.
Becoming God



http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/04/scientists-find-imprint-universe-existed-big-bang

The article was interesting but didn't provide solid evidence of anything, seemed to be filled with speculation to me. I don't believe any human knows how our universe came to exist as it does. Though some think they know and are happy to tell you about it.

 

[Nakosis]

Very interesting. Enjoyed reading the article. Those apparent particles are based on speculation, and other scientists disagree. We await confirmation, but, based on the dismal amount of evidence, there doesn't appear to be much hope. Even if it were true, we still have the beginning of everything issue to deal with, unless, we can prove our material universe, or other material universes had no beginning. The no beginning proposition is difficult if not impossible to imagine. It infers a material world without laws of entropy or without matter and energy. Such a condition is purely imaginary. The time line will come back on you every time, ha. ha.

Same problem with using God as a causal beginning. What caused God or what came before God one can always ask. Maybe you can claim that God has always existed but how is that any different from claiming the universe has always existed?

And we know the universe exists at least. God on the other hand remains speculation.

 

[Nakosis]

The article was interesting but didn't provide solid evidence of anything, seemed to be filled with speculation to me. I don't believe any human knows how our universe came to exist as it does. Though some think they know and are happy to tell you about it.

I agree. I claim no knowledge. I only see this as opening up new possibilities.