Why argue with someone that is saying the only thing they can say

[Identity Crisis]

I'm at IHOP right now. I haven't ordered. I may get pancakes, or maybe a waffle. You mean that I can't believe that while also believing determinism is true, right? I would just say that our epistemic limitations make this a normal way of talking. I'll sit down and deliberate and come to a decision between the two, and that could all be determined. But I don't know right now what I'll choose. It's perfectly normal to say the coin may turn up heads or tails even though this would be the product of determinism. Our language just doesn't normally carry the baggage you're trying to put on the determinist.

1. As a determinist you believe that every thought and every action you will ever have or take was fixed at the origins of the universe.That "deliberation" is merely an illusion, like a computer deliberating, the outcome is fixed and cannot be changed. On determinism you aren't freely choosing anything.

2. Our language doesn't carry the baggage of determinism because our language assumes the reality of LFW.

3. Get the Grand Slam! LFW exists!

1. Again, you're just putting baggage on "deliberation" the same way you put it on "choice". These can and do make sense with our epistemic limitations. The determinist doesn't "freely choose", but they do choose.

2. I actually don't think this is so, but sometimes language is just sloppy and incomplete.

3. The dominoes fell such that I chose 5 pancakes and some bacon.

[Soren]

The problem with this discussion is that theism is at least as deterministic as materialism. Under theism, once God chooses which world to actualize, each sentient agent can only do what God foresaw that he would do at the time of actualization. Moreover, since God creates sentient beings in the first place, he not only foresees what each sentient being will do in the actual world, but he predetermines what each sentient being will do.

[Language-Gamer]

The problem with this discussion is that theism is at least as deterministic as materialism. Under theism, once God chooses which world to actualize, each sentient agent can only do what God foresaw that he would do at the time of actualization. Moreover, since God creates sentient beings in the first place, he not only foresees what each sentient being will do in the actual world, but he predetermines what each sentient being will do.

I guess if you use it in a non-philosophically robust way.

[Soren]

The problem with this discussion is that theism is at least as deterministic as materialism. Under theism, once God chooses which world to actualize, each sentient agent can only do what God foresaw that he would do at the time of actualization. Moreover, since God creates sentient beings in the first place, he not only foresees what each sentient being will do in the actual world, but he predetermines what each sentient being will do.

I guess if you use it in a non-philosophically robust way.

Care to explain?

[Language-Gamer]

The problem with this discussion is that theism is at least as deterministic as materialism. Under theism, once God chooses which world to actualize, each sentient agent can only do what God foresaw that he would do at the time of actualization. Moreover, since God creates sentient beings in the first place, he not only foresees what each sentient being will do in the actual world, but he predetermines what each sentient being will do.

I guess if you use it in a non-philosophically robust way.

Care to explain?

Sure, it is widely recognized by philosophers of all sorts that God can exist and all that jazz and indeterminism can be true. So, once one has a philosophically robust definition of determinism, then there is no problem.

So you equivocate on can do in a specific world and can do simpliciter. And similarly you equivocate between predetermining either in terms of grounding, truth makers, or soft vs hard facts, depending on your specific cup of tea.

[apophenia]

2. Atheists don't treat theists as if they could not have done otherwise. I've yet to hear an atheist say "I'm so sorry your determined to believe that way", instead, we hear a great deal of "why would you think that!!"

I see no conflict between the two.  If you do, would you be so kind as to point it out.  Proximal causes are called proximal because *ding* *ding* they are near to the effect in the causal chain.  Ceteris paribus, if I know your proximal causes for believing something I stand a better chance of intervening to alter your beliefs than if I talk about ultimate causation. 

not sure where you are confused, I've yet to hear an atheist say "I'm so sorry your determined to believe that way", instead, we hear a great deal of "why would you think that!!"

why would a materialist ask the question "why would you think that"

Why do you think that I would not ask that question under materialism?   You've given no reason why the information would be less useful to me under determinism than it would be under LFW.  As your signature indicates, you're of a rather set mind on the subject.  Perhaps I can't change your mind.  However if I am going to change your mind (change in a deterministic sense), then the answer to the question of "why do you think that" provides me with more useful information in terms of that goal instead of making some true but rather inutile comment about how you could not be other than you came to be before me today.  The latter comment is simply less useful, though in your case it might be appropriate.

Why would I not do the clearly more useful thing under determinism?  Bleating about could have done otherwise doesn't answer that question.

[RichardChad]

I'm at IHOP right now. I haven't ordered. I may get pancakes, or maybe a waffle. You mean that I can't believe that while also believing determinism is true, right? I would just say that our epistemic limitations make this a normal way of talking. I'll sit down and deliberate and come to a decision between the two, and that could all be determined. But I don't know right now what I'll choose. It's perfectly normal to say the coin may turn up heads or tails even though this would be the product of determinism. Our language just doesn't normally carry the baggage you're trying to put on the determinist.

1. As a determinist you believe that every thought and every action you will ever have or take was fixed at the origins of the universe.That "deliberation" is merely an illusion, like a computer deliberating, the outcome is fixed and cannot be changed. On determinism you aren't freely choosing anything.

2. Our language doesn't carry the baggage of determinism because our language assumes the reality of LFW.

3. Get the Grand Slam! LFW exists!

1. Again, you're just putting baggage on "deliberation" the same way you put it on "choice". These can and do make sense with our epistemic limitations. The determinist doesn't "freely choose", but they do choose.

1) What do you mean by "baggage"?  Do you believe I"m somehow misscharacterizing determinism?

2) What does it mean to choose, if the outcome is known? Does a flower choose to turn to the sun?

3) "epistemic limitations" just means that you aren't aware of what will happen, correct? On determism every thought and action you will ever have was fixed at the origin of the universe. How does not knowing it make a difference?

2. I actually don't think this is so, but sometimes language is just sloppy and incomplete.

How could one seriously make that claim? choose, intent, deliberate, reason, consider, decide, ALL are words that make sense only in the context of having the ability to freely choose. None of those words are EVER applied to living things that don't have that ability (like plants).

[Identity Crisis]

I'm at IHOP right now. I haven't ordered. I may get pancakes, or maybe a waffle. You mean that I can't believe that while also believing determinism is true, right? I would just say that our epistemic limitations make this a normal way of talking. I'll sit down and deliberate and come to a decision between the two, and that could all be determined. But I don't know right now what I'll choose. It's perfectly normal to say the coin may turn up heads or tails even though this would be the product of determinism. Our language just doesn't normally carry the baggage you're trying to put on the determinist.

1. As a determinist you believe that every thought and every action you will ever have or take was fixed at the origins of the universe.That "deliberation" is merely an illusion, like a computer deliberating, the outcome is fixed and cannot be changed. On determinism you aren't freely choosing anything.

2. Our language doesn't carry the baggage of determinism because our language assumes the reality of LFW.

3. Get the Grand Slam! LFW exists!

1. Again, you're just putting baggage on "deliberation" the same way you put it on "choice". These can and do make sense with our epistemic limitations. The determinist doesn't "freely choose", but they do choose.

1) What do you mean by "baggage"?  Do you believe I"m somehow misscharacterizing determinism?

2) What does it mean to choose, if the outcome is known? Does a flower choose to turn to the sun?

3) "epistemic limitations" just means that you aren't aware of what will happen, correct? On determism every thought and action you will ever have was fixed at the origin of the universe. How does not knowing it make a difference?

2. I actually don't think this is so, but sometimes language is just sloppy and incomplete.

How could one seriously make that claim? choose, intent, deliberate, reason, consider, decide, ALL are words that make sense only in the context of having the ability to freely choose. None of those words are EVER applied to living things that don't have that ability (like plants).

1. I'm not saying you're wrong about determinism. I'm saying that you thinking choice and deliberation must be an illusion given determinism is because your concepts have baggage that the determinist doesn't carry. So you saying that no one is really a determinist because they talk about choice and deliberation is just wrong.

2. I don't understand quite what you're asking here. A choice is just a selection among options. No a flower doesn't choose as far as I know. A choice requires intent I would say.

3. Not knowing is why it makes sense to say I may choose this or that on the menu.

4. This is the very thing we are discussing though. I'm saying that it's not true that these concepts require or only make sense given LFW.

[Emuse]

If there is a naturalistic answer then I would say that neuroplasticity offers some vital clues.

How?

Neuroplasticity is a rapidly developing area of neuroscience with practical applications for people with learning disabilities, sensory difficulties or those suffering from life debilitating seizures.  For one thing, it has almost certainly disproven the idea that the brain is a fixed machine like a computer.  Take away half a computer and you have a broken computer.  Take away half the brain, and the remaining half can be taught (with therapy) to take over the jobs that were once carried out by the missing part of the brain.  This is likely to be more successful when the person is very young because the brain is more malleable, the younger the person is.

When we are born, our brains are not fully developed.  I would say that it has almost certainly been empirically proven that interaction with external reality plays a vital role in the continuation of brain development outside the womb.  The corpus callosum changes most drastically during childhood and adolescence and that is the area responsible for messages being able to pass between the hemispheres.

[RichardChad]

If there is a naturalistic answer then I would say that neuroplasticity offers some vital clues.

How?

Neuroplasticity is a rapidly developing area of neuroscience with practical applications for people with learning disabilities, sensory difficulties or those suffering from life debilitating seizures.  For one thing, it has almost certainly disproven the idea that the brain is a fixed machine like a computer.  Take away half a computer and you have a broken computer. 

Not at all, most high end computers have redundancy built in to all aspects.

Take away half the brain, and the remaining half can be taught (with therapy) to take over the jobs that were once carried out by the missing part of the brain.  This is likely to be more successful when the person is very young because the brain is more malleable, the younger the person is.

When we are born, our brains are not fully developed.  I would say that it has almost certainly been empirically proven that interaction with external reality plays a vital role in the continuation of brain development outside the womb.  The corpus callosum changes most drastically during childhood and adolescence and that is the area responsible for messages being able to pass between the hemispheres.

God designed an amazing piece of hardware, I agree, but what does any of that have to do with answering the question of why you argue with theists as if they could do anything else?

On your view, all of what you described is determined. In this reality nothing else could have happened.