Come up with an argument against hard determinism

>but we would likely not be able to understand it because we are structured to see things as cause and effect.
how is this different from believing in God?

What show is that from?

And there are no arguments against hard determinism. How could the universe be anything but deterministic?

There aren't any. /thread

>tfw i thought you stole my screencap but I never ever posted it

>demonstrate the existence of immaterial things using only material things
Impossible

There are multiple documented experiments that demonstrated the influence that will has over the material word.
For example, placebo/nocebo effect is a real thing

As reality is indeed affected by the will (esp. 'voluntad'), destiny therefore cannot be predetermined, for one thing cannot be at the same time determined and constantly modified by men's ever=changing desires.

Three Kingdoms (chinese san guo 三国)

Mind you there is an older series as well but these screencaps are form the new one. It's really good (though chinese people swear by the old one)

It's based on one of the four chinese classics, the romance of the three kingdoms. It's (mostly) historically accurate, it plays in the period of chaos and three kingdoms after the Han Dynasty

>There are multiple documented experiments that demonstrated the influence that will has over the material word.
>For example, placebo/nocebo effect is a real thing
kek

metaphysical things aren't real, no matter how much you want them to be
>but you can't prove it because it cannot be proven
go back to church user

Random is exactly the opposite of predictable

The question is epistemological. The existence of God is assumptive. God's existence must be assumed to generate an idea on the matter. Wondering if cause and effect may not be all encompassing is akin to asking "How do we know that all is cause and effect?" This is a question of our own ability to know. This is not so much a question of the factuality of an idea such as God. I do see what you mean, both questions require that we ask how we can know.

Are you retarded?

Here's something following your line of thought: my assumption is that everything I say is right and you are clueless about it. Now from this position convince me I'm wrong and you are right.

Protip you can't because you set up a fake idea then claim it impossible to disprove because you just also added a fake part of reality in which you are right.

>metaphysical things aren't real, no matter how much you want them to be
Then your preferences aren't real and you can stop pretending to be superior.

>I don't understand physics so everything I don't understand is metaphysical

Is it hard determinism, or is it the power of an Idea whose time has come?

>The existence of God is assumptive

mfw this is what Occidentals actually believe

Fuck you Georg

Your sense of superiority has no basis in a worldview deprived of values. This arrogance is contradictory to the "perspective" you espouse. In other words, you are a pseudo intellectual ape, beating yourself off and expecting us to act impresed. No one cares.

>randomness is predictable

Then it ain't random, son.

YOU don't understand physics if you think it has much of anything to say about traditional metaphysical questions

*dialectic intensifies*

Assumptions are not knowledge, they are guesses. Although some assumptions (such as you being a faggot) may be true, they must first be verified (through you posting ridiculous arguments). The idea of determinism not necessarily being the whole truth (or the way things actually are) can be arrived at with the quite simple truth that humans oftentimes do not see things in the way that they truly are (such as how we cannot see the full light spectrum, or how we distort and misrepresent distance, ect.) What separates this from assumption is that it has be subjected to scrutiny and determinism as well can be subjected to scrutiny, we may not have the instruments to see it yet (such as how ultraviolet could not be even considered real untill the modern era).

It is not very effective

how about now

Not at all dude.

just a little more time

i can feel we're making progress here

Why? Arguing is wrong

Come up with an argument against absolute idealism and the implication that there are no "externalities" that could control thought

Not an argument
>muh feels

argument: you can't exclude muh feels as a counterargument when muh feels is how you are arriving at your own conclusion

Fuck off, son.

>assumptive
God is immanent, while all other experiences are lensed. To deny the existence of God is to deny existence.

this is it user

i've rerouted all power through hegel's nose in an emergency overdrive, we're coming into reality now

unfortunately, the crew and i cannot be expected to survive this shitpost as we cross through the memeosphere at maximum speed

over and out

Counterargument: it's not tho

How do you get to hard determinism via a different route?

I have accepted death as an inescapable part of my journey through existence.

>'Hard determinism is real'
>'Give me an argument'
7/10, best I can do

Yeah, but where are your proofs?

this (you) is well-earned

can you provide an argument for it?
can you also provide proof that our understanding of determinism is indeed the truest form of reality possible?

Which show is it?

three kingdoms 2010

it used to be available on YouTube for free in English but i guess they took it down

I hate sushi, never really liked it. Not huge on raw fish.

There is a conceivable possibility that I might one day like sushi, I might get it at lunch, completely at random which goes against most deterministic arguments - given my previous experience. Most fatalistic determinists argue that we're slaves to our experience.

However, this doesn't mean that I'm going to randomly develop a taste for slugs out of my garden, there are still limits to in-determinism.

Thanks.
It doesn't matter, I'll find it

>proof
Experience is proof