Blame is a Prejudice (Free-Will & Determinism)

Thank you once again con for your time. "The self-defeating character of determinism is that for Pro to accept it as true, he must believe that he believes in it because he was predetermined to do so. He hasn't been able to weigh the pros and cons rationally and make up his mind freely based on that, but was determined by outside forces." Again, I believe that it is a miss-interpretation of Hard Determinism that leads con to this conclusion. If we were to simply question why I was predetermined to believe in Hard Determinism, it would be because I used my determined rational mind (among other things) to interpret the evidence in a way that I found convincing, including the internal (and still determined) weighing up process that you mentioned. The same can be said for the following quote; "…its impossible for him to rationally affirm it, for its very affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation." Con argues that due to the fact that the diverse nature of the world disallows for a repeating of the same circumstances twice (the phrase ‘you can never stand in the same river twice'), there is no way to prove cause-and-effect, and subsequently, determinism. While this is ultimately true, I disbelieve that there is anyone alive who will argue against such an overwhelmingly obvious cause-and-effect world. Furthermore, I'd even ask con to suggest an alternative to mental cause-and-effect reasoning, and how it works, and thus to explain how free-will works. Free-will has as little validity as Hard Determinism, as it is an area completely unexplored by philosophers. Cons assumptions, and the assumptions of Free-Will are as equally questionable as that of a Determinist. And so, while I cannot prove a deterministic mind, I will point out a few things that lean towards that conclusion; -Predictability: How are people predictable if they have the freedom to do what they want? -Self Perfection Mentality: If we are so free, then why don't we all choose to enjoy being good people? Not choose to act as good people, but choose to actually become good people. -Our Sympathy towards Innocence: A child does not know that it is wrong to be greedy until taught. Notice how we assume that someone who is an adult is thus capable of controlling the stealing desires? This is a prejudice. We prejudge them as capable of a certain level of self-control that is not based on anything but a presumption of maturity. Once you clarify that all decision processes, all influences internal and external, and all prior events are determined, there is no room for a freedom of will. Once again, trying to prove freedom of will proves impossible, as free will would allow anyone to do anything in any circumstance. Hypothetically, you could read this and conclude that the world is flat (and believe it) if you so wished. If everything is unbiased, then how could anyone decide anything? I even question why anyone would want a will made up entirely of random conclusions, as appose to an entirely rational, all-inclusive determined consideration. I disagree with the next point, I can and do affirm moral responsibility on myself and others. It is the ideology, the self-expectation that will allow me to function. I do, however, feel sympathy even for those who are considered disgustingly evil. I believe that a series of events led them to become who they are. A bigot is usually taught to become a bigot (at least, in the eyes of the opposition). Is it a racists fault if they were raised to become a racist? Is a sexist at fault if they incorrectly conclude, in a society of sexism, that men are better? Under the free-will idea we should blame flat earth believers for their beliefs. The experiment is inherently flawed; again it uses the assumption that you may change what you are determined to do, and are free from certain influences, which is not true. The reason you can believe to change determinism is because you are ignorant of the fact that your very desire to prove your freedom is a strong enough influence to change the trivial task of choosing a breakfast food. Try this thought experiment: Consider any choice that you have ever made. Ask yourself why you made that choice. Consider the influences, and how much control you had over them at that time. Consider everything. You will notice that none of those influences are changeable. "The problem I have here is that people don't always do what they "want," but at times they put other things even above their wants. Someone pushes me, I "want" to push him back, but I "choose" to walk away." Simply ask why. In the end, it's because you wanted to walk away more than you want to hit someone, otherwise you would have hit them. Isn't that an obvious truth? Instead, you are claiming ‘I wanted to hit him, but I used some other influence (which has yet to have a source) to decide not to. This is not at all based on any internal or external factors, but is separate and free'. You may as well decide to dance in front of the man instead of hitting him. Your reference to quantum physics can no way be attributed to the supposed existence of free-will. I dare even you to try to make that connection. There is a difference between free-will and unexplained probabilities. Notice, however, that the very measurable probability shows that behind this "randomness" is a certain logic, a mathematic law. For something to be truly chaotic, it must have no laws. "Pro says he can't control the effects his conscience has on him, but the conscience will only condemn us for that which we truly believe we are wrong" Exactly, realize that I do not choose to believe what is truly wrong. It is determined that I dislike greed. It is determined that I dislike violence. It is determined that I cannot choose to change these things. "Con argues that our prior beliefs determine why we react differently to the same set of evidence, and yet, they are atheists who had such extreme education in defense of atheism and attack of Christianity, that given that background, and given their views, should not have been convinced by the evidence for God, yet, they were. This argument works both ways." Simply ask them why and they will give a reason. Examine that reason