Order is proven by the fact that we can make successful predictions based on the fact that we believe and use order.
What prediction is not of some form of a generality. I can predict that you are going to use your computer… regardless if the prediction fails…it is a prediction all predictions are subject to not being accurate. I would think we can’t completely know anything. What will happen can be predicted, if we knew all there was to know…say if one was God…perhaps…then one should be able to know exactly what will happen next… or at the least I would think that free-will is such that by it God nor anything can completely no exactly what is going to happen in what way, nonetheless the final things or some general thing can be known… But there are loops because if one knows the prediction knowing the prediction changes the action that would have lead to what was predicted…generally… Again knowing exactly what anything is going to do or what you will do is impossible without the thing being “well studied” and even then there are flaws and room for inaccuracy in any prediction.
The oddity of the excusion based on determinism regardless of whether determinism is true or not is that if one chooses to do something or not to do something either way it would have been determined… That someone is naturally some way and thus it is ok , is silly, if we applied that to humanity all the time then we would still be barbarians, being civil and growth of consciousness, or humanity is about overcoming the instincts, the negatively natural aspects that drive us, regardless of whether they are determined or not.
But so is free will.
Yes. This is my point exactly (I think).
Determinists don’t need excuses. You only need an excuse if you could have done otherwise 
No, you didn’t already cover that, because this “deciding which caused action” thing is exactly what I was responding to. Your decision itself was caused, that’s what you’re not getting.
Brilliant, haha.
Chester: no doubt you can now appreciate that the free-will/determinism debate is genuinely difficult to get around. Your implications that it is only morons that cannot understand the concept of free will, and only cowards that take refuge in determinism, are not made in good faith.
Here is my argument for free will that I hope will settle this. To prove the existence of free will, it disproves the law of UNIVERSAL causality entirely . This does not mean there is no order at all.
Numbers 1 and 7 are exactly the same. They are included twice for the sake of clarity.
Number 1 can be skipped if desired. Please check the argument both ways if you are critiquing it.
1.) We cannot have UNIVERSAL causality without a first cause (of the universe).
2.) In order for there to be a first cause (of the universe), there must be UNIVERSAL causality, by definition of the word “cause”.
3.) The sequence of causes must begin at some point if there is a first cause. In order for this to be possible, infinite regression must be grounded.
4.) If infinite regression is grounded, then it is no longer “infinite regression” because it does not extend infinitely in that case.
5.) Therefore, infinite regression cannot be grounded because if it were, it would no longer have the definition it has.
6.) If infinite regression cannot be grounded, there cannot be a first cause (see 3).
7.) We cannot have UNIVERSAL causality without a first cause (see 1).
Conclusion: The law of UNIVERSAL causality is incorrect. Without universal causes, there can be no universal determinism. Without universal determinism, there is free will.
There you go.
The same is true of “will” and “choice” . . .
Not sure what you are getting at.
I think you’re getting hung up on the definition of words, here. What could be more universal than an infinite regress? Without your first premise, the rest of your argument disintegrates.
Please read the words above it. Also, read 4 and 5.
I don’t agree with your case that without a grounded infinite regress, causality cannot be “universal”, and without a universal causality, free will is made room for. I don’t believe you’ve established this point before delving into your argument.
What is your definition of universal causality?
Do you agree with this statement from my conclusion?
“Without universal determinism, there is free will.”
I will work on establishing that.
As long as the will is determined, it is not free. That everything may not be determined is no argument for the freedom of the will.
Is the will not included in “everything”?
Also, I have no idea why someone would think that their will is determined, if not by “everything” or some part of it.
I don’t have an argument against whatever that is, and I never will. If it is beyond “everything” then I don’t even…
you seem to have edited the post i was responding to, but it appeared to me that you were merely justifying use of a certain vocabulary and not really demonstrating anything about free-will or determinism
I edited it, yes. I didn’t want anyone else to be confused. It was another conclusion that I think follows, but it might confuse people.
As for the vocabulary bit, could you clarify? I don’t know where this is coming from, sorry.
I don’t know what the difference is between universal causality and determinism. One implies the other.
nevermind - i guess i was just thrown off a bit by your initial conclusion - carry on . . .
Well, I need to know if universal causality implies determinism.
Because if it does, and universal causality is incorrect, then there is no determinism and therefore there is free will.
Basically I am trying to make sure I am not making a simple mistake anywhere. If not, then yeah.
EDIT: No replies?