I might determine that some things alone are not necessary cause, but a set of things to be necessary cause and sufficient also...once more correct me if I am wrong.

Just because it is necessary that X, Y, and Z hold before I can make the choice C, does nothing to "violate" freedom to choose C over the alternative possibilities B, D, or A. Doing C is not a compulsory act.

Nevertheless if indeterminism is true even on a macro level there would always be a chance greater then zero for something to not be sufficiently caused by a particular set of conditions...

Whoever said indeterminsim is true? I don't think so.

No, I don't make the Choice C, and then C randomly follows. You've got it backwards. That's indeterminsim which is false. Rather, I am the cause of C, so C follows necessarily from my choice.

Of course you can make the choice. Determinism is true, but that does not entail when I choose C, I could not have done otherwise. You confuse the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions for causality to be possible at all.

Someone care to explain him what I just said....:brickwall:
(FROM AN INDETERMINISTIC POINT OF VIEW)

I agree you can make the choice . Indeterminists not me, would argue like I rhetorically did before, therefore would not defend free will...

Several times you did get wrong and not just with me...pay attention, just that !

I am all for determinism even more than you or kenneth, remember ?

I don't care. It's not my job to pay special attention to you. In fact, I don't take you seriously at all because most of the time you don't make any sense.

Ah, let me see here.

I don't believe fast is arguing what you think he is arguing. I believe fast's point was simply that future events aren't logically necessary.

And I'm not sure you even disagree with him. I think his confusion came with you said, "Facts of the past together in conjunction with the laws of nature entail every truth about the future". What I think you meant was that future events are causually determined (I don't like this word, but hey, we are talking about determinism here!) by past events - which of course makes sense; it's a chain of events.

However, fast interpreted this as future events are logically necessitated - that is, they must happen the way they will.

But there is a difference between something being part of a chain of events, and something being logically necessary. And, so, I'm not sure you and fast are even in disagreement.

What you think on me is not relevant, now the words you put in my mouth because of yours misunderstandings are quite relevant for the debate,once they bring confusion and not clarity...

What "misunderstandings"?? More filler. You need to go buy a bag of cotton balls to stuff in your mouth everytime you intend to make an empty accusation toward people. Put up, or shut up. The miscommunication between us is your own damn fault. I don't have this problem with anyone else but you. And everyone else regularly has the exact same difficulty understanding what it is you are, in fact, saying, and what it is you are not, in fact, saying. So keep that fact in mind before you jump to conclusions, Sherlock.Then stop addressing it.

1 - Regarding my statements on the expansion of Space.

2 - Regarding my meaning on Dialectics.

3 - Recently with what I think Indeterminists would say...

4 - With several others in the thread Zetherin just call your attention recently...

You are dumb and arrogant, you bring confusion and on top you are provocative...you just seam like a lose cannon shooting in every direction, ...just shut up and address someone else parrot !

?
First, you said being comes from nothing--this is false.
Second, you also have a bad case of self-projetion: you accused me of believing "space expands in nothingness"--which is clearly false. I never said such a thing: you did.



You are still wrong. "Dialectical" does not mean "transcendent."



I never attributed the belief indeterminism to you. I said you confused necessity with sufficiency--which you did.



That's fast's fault. He didn't read my post. Go back and read them! I explicitly said fatalism is not determinism!!!



I've reported this to the moderator too. Grow up! I will do everything in my power to make sure you are removed from this forum since I told you to stop calling me names several times now, and you refuse to quit.

I think this is a nonsensical view. If every event has to have a cause and causes are events then every event's causes need a cause and so forth. This leads to an infinite regress of causes. Of course, some people may say "so what". But the problem is that each of these causes rests on, depends on, yet another cause. It's hard to see how, individually, any of these causes can come into to existence when their existence rests on yet another cause which falls under the same argument.

All that is meant by the term "free will" is that we have the capacity to make choice. You can take "free" out of it, if you like. We have the capacity to will things. Is that confusing? And I'm not asking that sarcastically. What exactly is the issue of complication?

I just advice people to go back in the thread to check on what I actually said

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 !

...and the problem is expansion towards what, nothingness ?
How can Space expand into nothingness ???