Determinism is self-defeating

Thank you ConformistDave for your prompt reply. Before going on to look at Con's response to my premises, I would like to quickly comment on Con's sources. In particular, I am not sure what relevance the link regarding Schrodinger's Cat (http://www.informationphilosopher.com...) has to this debate. I would like to ask con to clarify the purpose and relevance of this source. Premise #1: Con has argued here that I am begging the question, which would mean that the conclusion is one of the premises [1] They have not clearly demonstrated, however, that this is the case with my first premise. In fact, the first premise follows logically from the definition of causal determinism "the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature."If every event is necessitated by antecedent events, then one's beliefs must be necessitated by antecedent events. Thus, if determinism is true, each person's beliefs are pre-determined. He continues by arguing that "There is no belief to reject a deterministic universe, however there is a universal will that exists but it is made up of precedent events." To begin with, I'm not sure what is meant by a "universal will." That aside, his statement that "there is no belief to reject a deterministic universe" is problematic because this is precisely the question at hand. We are, after all, debating, whether or not determinism is self-defeating, and if it is, this would be a reason to reject a deterministic universe. By making this statement in one of the premises of his argument, Con is begging the question. Furthermore, there are a number of objections to a deterministic universe besides the one I a making in this debate [2]. Finally, Con's statement does nothing to disprove my first premise. Premise #2: Con has misunderstood my point. I am not arguing that all determinists are irrational and are looking at the evidence in an irrational way. I am arguing that no belief is held rationally if it is pre-determined. As I stated in Round 2, rationality is not a sufficient condition for having true beliefs (it is always possible to overlook a piece of evidence, of to simply not have all of the relevant data), but it is a necessary one. Thus, I do not think that all determinists are irrational. I think that they are incorrect, however, precisely because their rationality depends on determinism being false. Con has made no arguments to show how rationality is possible under a deterministic framework, or to show how one can rationally evaluate one's beliefs if even that evaluation is pre-determined, or to show how one can evaluate the causes at work in nature if those causes have pre-determined the evaluation. Con has not given us a reason to believe that rationality is possible if one's choices are pre-determined, just as the actions of chemicals in a beaker are pre-determined. Con then goes on to say that "[pro] then begins to challenge scientific data in regards to making a rational decision about the universe." This, however, is a misrepresentation of my position. I challenged no scientific data; rather, I argued that the possibility of rationality evaluating scientific data is contingent on having the freedom to be rational. Premise 3: Con does not attempt to refute my claim that an argument for determinism presupposes rationality. Thus, this point still stands. And once again, he does not explain how rationality is possible under a deterministic framework. It would seem, then, that my arguments still stand, and that since an argument for determinism presupposes rationality, yet also undermines the possibility of rationality, that determinism is a self-defeating argument. I look forward to hearing Con's reply. [1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [2] https://sites.google.com...