Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 12:14:32 GMT
And I've certainly never claimed to be able to change any outcome from what it is predetermined to be; but my thoughts and actions are certainly part of the chain of events that will lead to the eventual outcome.
We make choices and act based on our preferences and traits. That's free will. We are intentional creatures that that do things because we wanna - at least until somebody actually comes anywhere near to showing otherwise, frantic waves and hard-leaning manifestos excluded.
But you've failed to describe why determinism cannot account for the fact that we make choices in accordance with our preferences and traits. If it is so constrained, then what are our choices free from? If you say external coercion, then you're just reiterating the compatibilist position of deterministic philosophers, but yet still trying to maintain that our choices aren't predetermined. You're adding an unwieldy layer of hypothesis which you cannot even explain; when there is a perfectly elegant and simple explanation for our conscious experience of decision making.
You are in fact so rigidly constrained by your and a lack of perspicacity/coherency that you need to project it species-wide, if not even more so by your dogma and the concomitant willingness to tendentiously ever pronounce as so what you cannot know.
My views on free will are well within the mainstream of secular scientific beliefs. It's certainly unscientific to insist that something exists without being able to explain how it works, what it adds or why it needs to be hypothesised.