Determinism is self-defeating

Any further discussion of whether determinism is self-defeating may be pointless since Con seems to believe that any discussions of logic or logical fallacies are "ambiguous semantics", "fuzzy discussions", or "distractions from reality."Con has also stated that it is perfectly rational for the conclusion of an argument to be in the premises, which leads me to believe that he does not understand how good reasoning works. I am including two links in my citations - one about logical fallacies, and one on circular reasoning in particular. Hopefully this will clarify the importance of using logical valid arguments in any debate - even debates about determinism. [1] [2] Con's response to Section 1 comes in three parts: his dismissal of logic (which I have previously addressed), blanket statements that determinism is not self-defeating, and an argument that the only way to argue against determinism is by arguing for chance. Con's statements that "Determinism is in no way self defeating not even one iota", and "There are no logical contradictions or false beliefs...when it comes to the matter of determinism" are generalizations that completely disregard all the arguments I have made to the contrary. And since my burden of proof was not to argue for chance but to show that determinism is a self-defeating belief (an argument I have made without reference to the element of chance Con thinks necessary), it is not clear that this statement is anything more than a red herring. [3] In Con's response to section 2, he states that belief is a fuzzy word. One has to wonder if that can be anything but a belief. At any rate, I have provided a definition in case the meaning of "belief" has been unclear [4]. The point of premise 1 was that if determinism is true, then all events - including mental events - are pre-determined, and this should be obviously true. Con essentially agrees with my third premise although he makes the new point that rationality is only possible if there is a predictability of sorts, and that the only alternative is a universe with the predictability of a lottery ticket. Of course, there needs to be a level predictability in the world in order for rational claims to be possible. This is different, however, from the strongly deterministic claim that every event is necessitated by previous events. And there is no reason to suppose that the only alternative to a deterministic world is a lottery-ticket-world in which everything is unpredictable. In sum, my first and third premises still stand. Con has five arguments against my second premise. I will mirror his format in my responses so that our points can be easily compared. 1) The scientific evidence he has presented does not prove a deterministic universe. As I stated before, a belief that science will prove determinism is a belief about the future, and no one, not even President Obama, knows the future. 2) The relevance of this statement is unclear. 3) In order to evaluate scientific evidence you have to presuppose your own capacity to be rational. Since the question of rationality is logically prior to scientific research, arguing for rationality from scientific research is circular. 4) It may be asked, what is Con's beef with psychology, and why is that relevant to the question at hand? I have already supplied a working definition of belief, so it should now be clear what is meant by the word. 5) "if a=b and b=c then a=c." Contrary to his earlier rejection of logic, Con now seems to be a true believer in logical theory! However, this does nothing to prove that determinism is not self-defeating. In fact, he has not even attempted to refute my claim that "Reason must depend on something utterly different than causal determinism." I find nothing in any of Con's rebuttals that show that a belief can be held rationally if it is necessitated by antecedent events, therefore Premise 2 still stands. Since my premises stand, and my conclusion follows logically from the premises, the claim that determinism is a self-defeating belief still stands. I would like to thank Con for being a challenging debate partner. I hope this debate has been as challenging and rewarding for him as for me. [1] http://www.logicalfallacies.info... [2] http://www.logicalfallacies.info... [3] http://www.logicalfallacies.info... [4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...