Intellectual humility. It was once said that we collectively know a millionth of one percent about anything. I disagree. I believe that we collectively know nearly so little compared to what can be known and what cannot be known (at least to us) that the gulf is nearly infinite and the smartest amongst us compared to the dimmest amongst us is unimportant by comparison. 1.

The nature of cause and effect. To say all effects have causes leads to an infinite regression, to say something must be uncaused violates the rule. In truth, I see cause and effect without actual reference reality as the exact same thing. It would be correct to say all causes are effects and all effects causes. In essence, one can just as correctly describe the timeline as 1 cause followed by infinite effects or the current state as infinite effects regressing back to a cause (assuming no infinite regression). 1.

On truth and logic. Hume famously pointed out that inductive logic was illogical as we have no knowledge of the future and extremely limited knowledge of the past. Kant famously made an argument otherwise (not going to get into specifics) while Nietsche famously explained why Kant’s argument was circular. On this, I’m at the tentative conclusion that truth is ultimately the best or most accurate description of something we have at the time. Where evidence cannot be found, the phenomena itself must be described. 1.

On the possible and impossible. It’s impossible for me to jump really high from my position and land in China. This changes perhaps outside of a Chinese embassy. Everyone seems aware of the distinction before the behavior is actualized. Everyone, but the hard determist. The hard determist posits that prior to the actualization...one possiblity exists at all times. They cannot explain why, particularly for mundane possibilities like opening the door on the left or right....and at this point, a cause must exist, even if unknowable. This cause of the gaps argument is where I abandoned determinism for the better description of free will. A choice is made. 1.

Emergent property. Simple molecular combinations create properties neither molecules have alone. At room temperature oxygen and hydrogen are gasses, combined in a specific way, a liquid. More complex configurations lead to processes like photosynthesis. In the extremely complex configurations of our brains....reasoning. Reasoning on the potential outcomes of possible courses of reactions creates a reason which itself is a unique cause generated by our brains. 1.

On the futility of determinism as a description. Given that no 2 people have the same dna, experiences, memories, and preferences or fears...and the external variables of circumstances are nearly infinite (when considering possibility) determinists have no hope of ever actually explaining human behavior (which is why they cannot) whereas free will choice does....through explanation of reasoning. Reasons need not be rational or irrational....only causes for behaviors. 1.

On the accuracy of the two descriptions. Since neither explanation seems to ever be capable of proving or falsifying their description....the question is if people act as if they make choices and judge others as if they make choices....or they do not? Clearly they do....and as such, my belief is in free will choice, and the judgement of said choices that follows. I’ve yet to meet the determinist who behaves otherwise, as mere argument for determinism is an argument for the superiority of itself as an explanation, and delving into the motivation for such an argument....at minimum, the determinist believes things should or ought to be “better” in some way if their belief were widespread. This itself invalidates the position that none make choices and none should judge others as if they should. 1.

On the counterargument that the determinist cannot do otherwise. This is an implicit validation of free will choice as the better description. It is not an illusion, as illusion is known to be falsehood. If one were to genuinely to believe that the illusionist or magician were capable of sawing a woman in half and reassembling the woman whole again....they would surely flee in fear or demand explanation. The illusion is recognized and treated as non-real. Yet free will if an illusion is one the determinist claims he cannot see through, cannot dismiss, cannot passively ignore....and therefore he doesn’t treat it as an illusion at all. He treats it as reality. This verifies the truthfulness of the description....and contradicts all the determinist insists they believe.

This is of course, the short version of my position. I hope it’s easy enough to follow, and has not been a simple matter of faith but rather a long a tentative conclusion of reasoning. I don’t expect agreement, in fact, agreement isn’t really of much consequence, as I am certain that no genuine determinist would bother themselves with an argument otherwise. They would passively accept the reasoning laid out....and forgo any judgement for the reasons laid out. Ultimately, I expect they will act as I and everyone else....as if free will choices are made and judgements of behaviors as if they were chosen will be the norm for them as well.

Thanks for reading this far. Enjoy your discussion below.