ProfessionalTeabagger

That would be replacing a noun with an adjective and create confusion. No. I still don't understand what that question means. To me it's like saying "I still don't understand what you mean by Me".

When I consider determinism as a possible solution I have to make those assumptions in order for it to be true. When I consider free will as a solution I only have to assume that people can choose to some degree and that we don't know how. Free will allows me to retain logical consistency. Determinism does not.

No one actually knows.

Those are the assumptions I would have to make in order to arrive at the position that determinism was a solution. I guess in another sense they could also be said to be conclusions but what does that matter?

@Rainbow Dash It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Determinism leads to so many assumptions it makes my head spin. With determinism I have to assume my volition is an illusion, that everything I do is utterly determined and could not be any other way, that morality is nonsense, that all my conscious thinking and efforts to reach truth are the simple playing out of unconscious material forces, that any virtue or vice is involuntary and that truth (ones beliefs and conclusions conforming to reason and evidence) is non-existent. I could probably come up with a lot more but i think that makes the point. Free-will on the other hand is not a solution. It's is a label I put on an empirically verifiable ability to choose that does not appear to exist in any non-intelligent configuration of matter and energy. Could free will be an illusion? Sure. Could it be something unknown? Sure. But until that question is answered I am going to to proceed with the logically consistent position. To proceed under the assumption of determinism is to make a positive claim that has not been shown to be true. That's religion. Free will is a place-holder for I don't know.

I am virtually certain it will be a version of ghost in the machine. I think this notion comes mostly out of religion. In the past, people would project their sense of self or spirit onto the environment. Objects in the external world were given agency or said to have spirits. Now that people are coming to atheism they no longer have the magic explanation for free will so they do a one-eighty and start projecting properties of objects in external reality onto the self. The mind hates a vacuum. Yes many people have that notion of outside cause and effect. It's the ghost in the machine thing. But when pushed they often do not know what cause and effect really is. It was Bertrand Russel who argued that the idea of causality should removed from philosophical discourse. "To me it seems that philosophy ought not to assume such legislative functions, and that the reason why physics has ceased to look for causes is that, in fact, there are no such things. The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm." That's from "On the notion of cause" I would also recommend Carl Hoffer's "Causality and determinism: Tension or outright conflict". You're idea of a spherical structure is pretty interesting. For me free will is like you able to cause yourself; although that might sound a bit crack-pot.

It's probably because you have a notion of free will that is logically impossible. Remember that a round earth would have seemed logically impossible to ancient humans. To them it would be a kind of physical law that things fall down so anything on the bottom or sides of the earth would fall of. In a few centuries people might be having discussions about how 21st century humans, especially atheists, often believed that their volition was an illusion and they were fundamentally no different to rocks.

I'm not sure what you mean by "reality causes...". You are part of reality so it's like saying, "if reality causes reality..." . Many people including myself cannot even define cause in any way that isn't uselessly broad. As determinism is often just someone's way of saying "cause and effect" (their superficial perception of how things happen in time) , "determinism is also uselessly broad. I assume you mean you arm lifting in some involuntary way; say to prevent a ball that's flying at you.

Not by any definition of deterministic I've ever heard. Most people do not define what kind of determinism they're talking about so i just assume they mean causal determinism because that's what most people mean.

I don't see any obvious problems with that definition. I'd have to mull it over more. Non-conscious objects are not relevant. Although impulse, instinct and physics may be involved, choice is not driven solely by them. Objects are just mindlessly pushed along by physics. Animals are driven solely by impulse and instinct (there may be some animals with some kind of proto-free-will. I don't know but we can leave those possibilities aside). Humans are also driven by these things but have a capacity for free-will that nothing else has. Yes, a newborn's brain doesn't develop that capacity for a while. Toddlers begin to shows signs of it. That's why peaceful parenting is so important. The child is not just pushed along by external forces beyond her control but begins to exercise their free-will early on.

Why should police services be neutral?

Stef's definition is the ability to compare what's in our minds to an ideal standard. For example we have an ideal standard of truth and so can choose between truth and falsehood. Everything else in the universe is driven forward by physics, impulse and instinct.

I think it was Stef who said "I'll leave it to third-rate thinkers to point out the rare exceptions". Being open-minded doesn't mean believing superstitious horseshit or making fallacious arguments against the most successful scientific theory ever. Being open-minded means always being ready to change your mind if new evidence and/or reason comes to light. Evolutionists give specific criteria for what would change their minds. THEY are the open-minded ones, not people like you who do nothing except make appeals to ignorance and steam-roll over any counter evidence or argument.

All evolutionists do adhere to the scientific method and all non-evolutionists are theists. You may be an outlier but that doesn't matter. Do you acknowledge that a method for falsification of evolution has been provided? It's a yes or no question and does not need opinionated commentary. Yes and it's still a human skull.

It can be explained by hydrocepaly. It wouldn't lend any credence to your alien hypothesis even if it couldn't.

It's strange to think that if evolutionists (those correctly adhering to the scientific method) declared evolution false because rabbits were found in the pre-Cambrian that many non-evolutionists (theists) would have to declare that it does not falsify evolution (if they wanted to be consistent with their claim that evolution is not falsifiable). Ok, sure the answer was met. But it is still relevant that the example doesn't do a good job at supporting evolution. And for your li Could you give an unqualified acknowledgment that the question was answered? As for your video it is obvious that you have not read the link. It's a deformed human skull.

Already elaborated. You asked someone for a way to falsify evolution and they answered you. You then move the goal posts without even acknowledging that they've answered your question. Could you please acknowledge that the question of how to falsify evolution has been answered? http://www.theness.com/index.php/the-starchild-project/

I'm not assuming that.

Alien life would be evidence for evolution. It would show that terrestrial life is not unique and that nature can produce other life.

Well I think that would be different because it comes under the category of pollution. The level of sound in that case far exceeds certain agreed upon norms and implicit contracts. Such a thing at some point would escalate from being a distressing annoyance into an assault. They would be deliberately invading your personal space including your body. It would be much harder to judge at what point this becomes an assault but at some point it would definitely be a property violation; just as much as if they'd thrown a brick through your window. So at that point you would have the right to respond with proportionate force. I might get a sound system, set it right beside them and play some awful cacophony (maybe nickleback) until they pissed off. If they continued to stay then you'd have enough evidence to show that they're just there to torment you.

I have little to no idea what this means and it is very awkwardly phrased.

You care to explain?

It doesn't interfere with their right to self ownership or breach their property rights. Any such claim is logically contradictory (and insane) because the claim itself demands interference with the other persons self-ownership and property rights (assuming you apply the same standard). Your notion of self-ownership and property rights is a straw-man. What example of self-ownership or property rights has been put forward that includes the right to never receive sound-waves to your ears without explicit permission? There isn't one. The principle I'm arguing from is that moral rules should be logical.

I give permission to have my ear-drums moved when I'm on the street and now is the first time I've ever thought about that. If you're on the street you give implicit permission to have your ear-drums moved. If a person is a demented weirdo and doesn't give permission then that's their problem. No one has any moral obligation to follow an illogical and preposterous made-up rule that is such a violation of norms that it's virtually impossible to even know about. It's not immoral to talk to the religious nut in your example. When did doing things people don't like become immoral? I don't want to look at bad ties. Does that mean anyone with a bad tie who happens to get in my field of vision is immoral?

No. What's that person going to argue? That there should be dead silence at all times from everyone else within sound distance of their house until such time as they give explicit permission for noise to be made? I'm not even sure that's logically possible.