then it should be called inevitablism, not determinism. Having determined something will happen is not the same as it being inevitable.

your last paragraph sounds like word salad, it's completely nonsensical:

If determinism is true, and (it; who? What?) determines all our thoughts and actions, then...

If determinism is true that's that all our actions are determined. That's all. It doesn't mean it's determined by causes external to our will. If it's determined that I will write this, then all that means is that it was probable that I would, thus it was determinable prior to the act. If in the beginning of the universe, everything was determined, all it means is that something powerful enough has collected all the information and decided that evidence points to a certain conclusion. I don't know where determinists are getting the idea of no control from - having consciousness and a mind certifies control.

This is what you are saying: it was determined since the beginning, thus I have no control. That's false. What's true is that if it was determined since the beginning, it's probable that the acts that follow are the determined ones.

If it's to be argued that determinism means something else, it can be dismissed as pure fantasy and delusion that a consciousness, with a mind, is out of control of its own actions, due to some higher force. It equates God belief. You literally believe all your actions are guided by some force other than yourself.

Edit: I think you're confusing determinism with impossiblism.

Why does something being determined mean that the person has no control? Perhaps it's just predictable behaviour.

Isn't religion, educational things (including philosophy) put in practical use considering the nature of living on this planet? Sure, God is significant in the bible, but the amount of words alongside God outnumber God. God can be considered a creative tool set to enforce the latter, that is, the way to live. Isn't it just an attempt at co-ordinated living given all what we know?

Nothing is the reduction of everything from everything, only then would you have nothing. To claim that things ever were a state of nothing, or that things begin from nothing, requires justification for that point. How do you know that there wasn't something before the beginning of time? It's my guess that in times before the beginning, was something strange, without form, that much like OP recommends, evolved through the potential for something more to come.

The status quo where if one does good, beneficial effects incur, sometimes species wide. This behaviour keeps the planet going. Perhaps we need to define the status quo I mentioned - for means to discuss or debate it cleanly.

Clearly take your chances with the human because there's a chance it's a good one. It's like a lottery with the human. Where as, with the bear, it's a challenge for short term food, or there is a chance it attacks you.

Being is meeting the condition of having rational activity, such as consciousness being the rational activity of a brain and body online. Or shoppers in shops.

I've always thought consciousness does being. It is the being aspect.

Does this mean that what's external to mind is possibly a matrix of different quality than what's perceived by mind?

Good isn't something decided by others. Good can be concerning groups or somebody alone, and their seeking of positive outcomes for their group or for the self.

I don't think anyone can argue against that good is a positive outcome, it's why you say 'this is good' as a compliment to some product. It was a positive outcome, hence why I celebrated the moment.

Will is not action, will is forwarding of future action. You don't will something, and immediately act, it's more an essence of a action to be. Do we have free will? If one isn't referring to an ultimate kind of freedom, then yes, the simplest yes and no question is presented to us all the time and we can literally say no or literally say yes. Whether or not the reason for us choosing either is reduced to its compound, doesn't make choosing redundant, for it doesn't have to be reduced, it's our own decision, there is the conscious owner of each body and we are in control of this decision. Some minds may not be in control of their decisions, this is weakness of the mind.

An argument against free will is an arguement against consciousness.

Is "Love" ever experienced stand-alone, above the fact it was chemicals of the body and mind? I would say yes, the mind doesn't force us to reduce love to the chemicals it is. In the same regard as the tree is not reduced to all of its parts - it exists - and it probably doesn't take into account the logic behind the reproduction of itself, the production of oxygen and so forth.

I can agree with this, rather poetic example.

A human replicates through reproduction, which isn't entirely logical, you don't need to know about how to reproduce, and you probably end up reproducing through desire to have intercourse. At most you supply energy and drive to what then becomes a matter of reproductive logic. Lot's of the procedure are skipped mentally, you do not have to consider the activity of sperm and egg, you just have to have a sexual encounter. My former example about the fact the words I type have no logic to them, and are completely creative, until they are accredited to their references. A tree is also a creative being, it isn't reduced to any or all of its parts, it exists on Earth stand-alone, and there was life force involved in it's generation where a whole lot of the logic involved in that was skipped. Most things are rather a product of simply living, but have enumerable amounts of logic within them. Throwing a ball is creative, you do it without considering the logic; that you grasped it with your hands and swung your arm back and forward, it's more the nature of the human who's wise of throwing, creating this action.

Well. Each to their own.

Creativity is an attribute of mind, it is it's ability to create, whether the creation be new or old. Artwork is creative, but so too is an experiment; there's the logic surrounding the experiment, but so too it's creation in the world. It's the opposite of logic, and most things have both a creative and logical side. Take a tree for example, there is it's being in the world and what created it, and then there is the fact it is green and produces oxygen. Most things need creativity to exist, you cannot produce a theory without knowledge of language and how to use it - the language itself is not the logic but it's intrinsic content is - use of language is purely creative until it is accredited to it's references.

Pleasure is associated with sin - take greed for example - the want for more of something(some pleasurable source).

I wouldn't even call God under the meaning I have subjected it to is even abstract at all - it's simply the things we do which are good. Can be thought of as 'little good', or that which must be taken care of properly with consistent good behaviour.

1. It doesn't make any less sense it being abstract, must we fear the abstract?
2. I never said pleasure sense is all negative, I said it has negative associations.

God is a concept in the bible, and in the bible it says "sin is opposite to God". I'm just putting 2 and 2 together. Nothing unintelligible about it, I understand what's opposite to Sin. That's not to mention the word God is close to the word good, considering the lexis of both words. It seems the authors of the bible are referring to something related to good; in my eyes, the consistent good, that is, the higher need for beneficent behaviour where living is concerned, is what God originally meant. We need to act in accord with what's beneficent, otherwise we will fail to survive. Again, it even mentions in the bible, "sin is opposite to God".

I don't really care for the book, if anything, I'd put it in my own words. Do I regard highly that which is opposite to Sin? Yes. It is necessary for us to benefit ourselves.

Nature here is largely unfair, there is encroaching doom to the people who wonder into the dark; packs of hungry animals may just find you as food. You may be killed randomly by another human with a rock, simply because you were not prepared. And for those who are prepared to play nature's game, even though in some eyes this may already be loss, the fact that people can group up and seek their end, makes true solitude here difficult. Nature has no sense of justice, and promises much pain to the weak - it's the opposite of justice.

In the bible it states that Sin is opposite to God. Sin is the things we do that benefit our pleasure sense, often things that have negative associations like greed making us obese or consuming too much from the land; lust, provoking us to commit crimes against fellow men, or again do something wrong where resource management is concerned; and more.

If God isn't considered a deity, which in some people's views God is not, then I would prove God by saying, it's opposite to Sin, so it would be the things we can do which prevent us from taking pain, in effect helping us to survive. These things can happen, so there is God proven.

Good is in the beneficence. Nobody is obligated to help others, though it may be a good endeavour. Making sacrifices for nothing can result in lots of pain, be sure to always make a sacrifice for something, even just to see your loved ones again.

My stance is that nobody ought negate their own good future by helping others for nothing in return, even if that something is small like positive attention or inclusion in the product of that endeavour.

Good is a positive outcome, whether that be by way of having a heart filled with beneficent opportunity or a mind apt with intelligence that can manage a good progression. Something you can truly say 'that was good', or 'I've got good chances'.

If the universe happened without a cause, it would certainly be a simulation; otherwise all things need a cause for them being there. If all the stars are there, there must be a cause for each one, unless it is a simulation of stars, then there may be reason other than direct genesis of stars.

It's a case of survival, one must do what is ought to survive.

Positive outcomes.

Having a good heart is having a heart filled with opportunity to create things that benefit you. You would have purpose, you would have opportunities to create a beneficent circumstance.

You are not responsible for morality, it is your choice, but being immoral has repercussions. If we're judging by amount alone, then it's always moral to save the majority; if you decide not to save the majority, then the environment you face after will criticize that, especially if there is no better reason. You will face the repercussions of your decision.

Simulation doesn't have to be contrary to the norm of reality, simulation can coincide with the norm. For example, each star may have a system, and each system is separate from the other - no system contains another system. In this way the universe is simulated systematically. Minds only 'load in' the presence of their solar system, and other systems aren't 'loaded in', but will be if mind becomes local.

Depends on many things. If, as depicted, it would be a relatively quick death, then I would base my decision on 'who', rather than amount. If it were my family member who was the other one, or a prospected greater good, I'd eliminate the majority; in such a case where the majority would experience major pain, and the other one not so much, I would save the majority and lose my family member. If we're asking what's the moral reason, there can only be one right answer.

And that's only because you're pulling the lever.

It's probably best not to. Save the feral collusion of people against objects.

It might be a case of 'they're all cranks saying crank'.

agreed.

Basically it's being suggested by the opposition that if we make a plan, it's not us, but some universal force controlling us to make a plan, and thus, no will is involved.
I argue that plans/acts do alter the future course, but that we can be in a mode where we're doing mostly one mind-module, for example, constantly picking the righteous choice, and thus we stray not too far from a determined path; however, the simple forced act of changing mode directly, indirectly changes the future.

doesn't that take all the sufficiency out of a plan, in that by creating a plan to follow, we end up following a different route into the future. The claim that the plan was the future then, doesn't change the fact that had we not created it, the future would be different. To suggest the query of whether determinism is or not, and address it with a blind 'it could be', is not a true argument. You can say 'how do you know it isn't determined?', but you can't say with any accuracy that plans don't change the future. I can say with accuracy that plans do change the future(without routing back under the false impression that determinism 'is', or 'makes a stand here'). I then would question whether I had any choice in both matters, but that's not siding with either argument originally.

I'm asserting that if we aim to change course, i.e. switch the mode we're in (what we're doing right now) it changes the future indirectly.

it seems you believe query of whether everything is determined or not, outweighs 'what is.' In this way you suggest that 'determinism means that you can't tell the act was willfully chosen', but what is, is a indirect change in future happening before our eyes.

definitely.

that's correct.