You're happy with ignoring the topic of the thread and talking about whatever damn well you please?

I haven't given up on causal completeness, since I do not know what that is.

Did I say that? If so, quote the post and explain your interpretation.
You began this thread with an argument that mirrors Swartz, as pointed out by Emil. I take it that Swartz is a professional philosopher. Professional philosophers are primarily concerned with offering technically interesting arguments. On discussion boards, the posters are more concerned about the attitudes that they, themselves, are justified in espousing with regard to various positions. This is the internet, not academia. Your naivety about internet discussion is not the problem of this threads contributors.

20 Point Infraction System
There's is a limit of 20 points before you are permanently banned from this website.

List of Offenses:

• Insulting other members - (3 points expires in 30 days) Insulting or belittling another member. Moderator may issue a warning.
  
• Thread Hijacking - (1 points expires in 30 days) Keep the threads on topic and do not hijack someone's threaded discussion.
  

Call the moderators or **** off.

Since you are so willing to act rude and type long rants

Bullshit! Quote even one post, authored by me, that could be interpreted as constituting a long rant.

Even a typing a sentence takes longer than clicking a button. You remind me of my 5th grade teacher. When asked what page we were currently on, instead of saying something simple like "237" she would give a long speech about how if we were listening then we would know what page we were on. The fact that you're still arguing about this instead of moving on is just adding to the absurdity.

You exemplify, on this occasion, the depth of idiocy. Nobody could more constructively derail a thread than you have, and you have derailed it by mooting a derail.
I'm not responding to this crap anymore, deal with it your own way.

Causal (or nomological) determinism is the thesis that future events are necessitated by past and present events combined with the laws of nature. Such determinism is sometimes illustrated by the thought experiment of Laplace's demon. Imagine an entity that knows all facts about the past and the present, and knows all natural laws that govern the universe. Such an entity might be able to use this knowledge to foresee the future, down to the smallest detail.

Sigh!..........................

Zelda, again? or. . . .

No. Just general boredom with this thread. Zelda is just fine, thank you for asking.

Okay, give her my regards, and explain to her why it is that they're pertinent to the thread.

That was my goal. Now I'm free to get it back on topic.

What more did you wish to discuss?

Causal (or nomological) determinism is the thesis that future events are necessitated by past and present events combined with the laws of nature. Such determinism is sometimes illustrated by the thought experiment of Laplace's demon. Imagine an entity that knows all facts about the past and the present, and knows all natural laws that govern the universe. Such an entity might be able to use this knowledge to foresee the future, down to the smallest detail.

Future events aren't necessitated by past and present events combined with the laws of nature. Therefore causal determinism is not a threat to freewill.

Future events aren't necessitated by past and present events combined with the laws of nature. Therefore causal determinism is not a threat to freewill.

That is what is called a non-sequitur, and your premise is false if you mean by "necessitated", physically necessitated. But, I'll give you this, your conclusion is true, anyway. You are batting 300. Not bad for a rookie.