Every event has a cause.

I'm with Extrain on this one, as I too believe that every event has a cause.

However, when I say that every event has a cause, what I really mean is that every macro-event has a cause. I do leave room for the possibility that micro-events may not have a cause. This could be interpreted, I suppose, to mean that I do not believe that every event has a cause, but I'm not a Libertarian, for Libertarians are those that 1) believe in free will and 2) do not believe that all macro-events have a cause.

So, as far as I'm concerned, just treat "event" as "macro-event".

Don't look at so many at once. I think every event has a cause, so I think even the events before my birth had a cause, but I need not worry about first cause or any event prior to my birth when considering the events that occur today. Why would my not knowing about the first causes have a bearing on the causes of today? Would you rather I said that every event that has occurred this century has a cause?

Science has given us a reason to think that some micro-events are uncaused, but science hasn't given us a reason to think that some macro-events are uncaused, so I don't think it's a mistake.

Be prepared to follow the logical implications of your beliefs. If you have a problem with infinite regressions, and I think you should, then you should also have a problem with the belief that everything is caused.

I never set out to defend my position but rather to differentiate between the different positions.

One just has to read your question to fast and kenneth to laugh of the silliness of your thinking on freedom...

What does dialectical mean ???Again you amaze me with the sheer charge of stupidity in your tone !!! Can you get a better more elegant description of how things to become are not to be transcendent to each other ? and I mean transcendent not transcendental ...duh !Get lost cartoonish fool !

But, no one should seriously think Determinism [is] false.

Apparently not, since you got it wrong.



When did I say this?



And how so? You apparently don't understand the difference between counterfactuals of freedom which is a conditional freedom, and the "garden forking paths" model of conditionless alternative possibilities.
They are not the same, and so how one goes about reconciling free will and determinism will depend on this distinction.



That depends on one's view of the Big Bang: you know this. To say that it even had a "beginning" is a misnomer, since space-time simply has no application "before" the big bang. And if one is a theist, the Big Bang is an event that had a cause, namely, god. Either way, the Big Bang doesn't "come from nothingness." I don't even see how that is even possible since it is absurd.



No one understands what you said. That's your own fault. Get with the program.



You are wrong. The philosophical definition of "dialectical" does not mean "transcendent." Here is a web-dictionary definition of the proper noun "dialectic" for you:

1. The art or practice of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments.
2. a. The process especially associated with Hegel of arriving at the truth by stating a thesis, developing a contradictory antithesis, and combining and resolving them into a coherent synthesis.
b. Hegel's critical method for the investigation of this process.



Excessive name-calling instead of answering my questions is a direct indication you don't have anything to contribute to this thread, so I reported your repeated verbal abuse to the moderators.

Learn to read !!!

1 - For the purpose, the problem with Big Bang is the expansion not the beginning itself... The expansion of Space is the growing in nothingness unless the future already exists...got it ? probably not !

2- When did I said that Dialectics is Transcendence ???instead is about preventing, explaining how such cannot be..."the fruit still contains the flower and the flower already contains the fruit"...remember ?

Your problem are not my arguments but your poor understanding...report me to whoever you want you loony idiot, this is the last time I am speaking with you !

It doesn't matter what prefix you add to the word "event". Either every macro-event has a cause and my previous criticism stands or there are some macro-events that happen but aren't caused.

I also think it's a mistake to divide the universe into micro and macro like that as if there were a real demarcation in the world and not something we've created.

What defines a micro-event from a macro-event? Hint: it's a convention, nothing more. Quantum weirdness has no inherent scale limitations. We made entire molecules interfere with themselves. I haven't been following things recently but we are ramping up for an experiment with an entire organism at some point.

But isn't inductive evidence for what people do (together with further assumptions, for example , the Principle of Induction) evidence for what people can do? At least scientists and common-folk like you and me, think so. If I do play chess, isn't that evidence that I can play chess? And pretty good evidence?

I want to make sure I understand what you think determinism is. Suppose all events (macro and micro) are determined. Given that, it would still be the case that not all events are necessary events. Do you agree with me? I think you should.

That's right. So to say the big bang came from nothingness is a misnomer, and so it is not correct to say this about the Origin of the universe. And?

You said dialectical means "transcendent." It does not mean that.

Besides, what you said sounds like Aristotle to me. The acorn is the material and formal cause of the full-grown tree since it contains all the necessary conditions for the tree to become what it is.

Fine with me. But I will still take the liberty to correct your errors so long as you continute to post them.

I think determinism tells us about the past. I don't think determinism tells us about the future. It can indirectly tell us something about the future, but only in a looking back sort of way. For example, if event Y happens at some future time T+26, then any cause will be antecedent (prior to) T+26.

This grand misunderstanding of determinism is the source of much confusion. Remember, determinism tells us that past events are caused. We are the ones taking that and drawing the conclusion that current events will produce an effect. It will, but what kind of an effect is what's important. Just because event Y did happen the way it did, that's not to say it had to of happened the way it did, and because it's not the case that every event that does happen had to happen the way it did, we have no good reason to think that all future events must happen the way they will; thus, and again, I do not share your view of determinism.