A circular object being the same as a square one would mean that it is circular and not-circular object at the same time. — elucid

Yes. But note the "at the same time" part that you have omitted in the first premise, you have said that "A circle is never the same as anything that is not a circle." which is different from what you are saying now. A circular object can not, at the same time, be both circular and non-circular. But, at a later time, it can be something non-circular and it would not be a circular object at that time.
So, i do not think the premise holds any water (maybe it's true if you look at it from the law of identity, but that does not support your consclusion).

Exactly. Societies have different established social rules on what women should do, not what makes one a woman. Those rules are sexist because they put women in boxes that limit them. Why can't a woman wear pants and have short hair and join the military and still be a woman? — Harry Hindu

If a woman has a short hair, they're still seen as a woman. If a woman joins a military, they're still seen as a woman. The only difference would be that now they're not seen as a "real woman" if the society decides such things determine that. But even the people who think that will not refer to them as a man, but as a woman-just not a "proper" one.

I do not think you can find any instance of someone, not insultingly or out of a mistake, calling a woman a man because the person believs that the person is a man just because she has short hair. That would be extaordinarily rare.

What makes a person a man or woman? Natural selection. — Harry Hindu

It is the SRY gene by that definition, as per the name "Sex-determining region Y protein". Natural selection is not really relevant.

I am basically saying something circular is never the same as something non-circular. — elucid

I would like to see your justification. Why would that be the case?

2. they played out and calculated (ran scenarios) what we would all do down to the last detail, i would argue that this was when we had free will. We are completely predictable at this point but we also had free will.

3. The gods let the events play out in real time and at this point what happens is all predestined or scientifically determined.

4. Any slight modification at any given point are also calculated. — christian2017

Wait, are you saying that they have figured, for example,our probability of choosing X in situtation A or that they have figured out that, given certain conditions, we will choose X? The latter does not require letting the events play out (and the main problem becomes incompabilitism's critisms) as you can know what will happen if you know all the variables (and determinism is true). Or do we somehow always choose to do what the events point out to? But the former does not mean that we are "scientifically determined" to do a thing, so it does not seem to be what you're saying.

Can you clarify yourself?

For sake of clarity, I would like to say what I have been trying to say in a different way.

A circle is never the same as a square. Thus, a circle is never a square. Otherwise, it is either sometimes or always the same as a square. Thus, sometimes or always a square. This principle applies to all things. — elucid

"A circle is never the same as a square." simply means that, at time T, the thing can not be both a circle and a square. But it could be a circle at time T and a square at time T'-this is the whole idea of change.

It would have been different in another culture. — Harry Hindu

No, the core part would have been the same-to "be a woman." The difference lies in different cultures having different established social rules on what women should do.

Just ask anyone around these parts and they will tell you that gender is a social construction. That means, that in order to change one's gender, they'd have to change their culture that they were raised in, not their clothes. In the same vein, religious people would have to change the culture that they were raised in order to have a different religion. — Harry Hindu

Or change how they talk, act and sound to that of a the other gender's-the subtle differences that makes someone of a gender along with the more usual ones.
That isn't contrary to what i said.

So, is "gender" a social construction, or a individual feeling? If is it an individual feeling, then how does a man know what it feels like to be a woman to claim that they are a woman? These are very basic questions that everyone should be asking, but they don't because they have an emotional attachment to their political beliefs, no different than a religious person. — Harry Hindu

It is both. You have to both act and look the way of the other gender (and no, acting masculine/feminine is not what i'm talking about, but rather what makes someone recognize,in a social setting, someone else as a male or a female) and feel that way. Albeit the individual feeling comes first since it determines which way one should act.

As for the question, "feeling like a woman" is not really seen as that much of a real thing anyways-even by trans people as far as i'm aware. It is rather a feeling that tells you that you are a woman deep inside and you are of the other gender. A feeling of connection to the idea of being a woman. "It just feels right."

You don't seem to understand what a social construction is. It is a shared assumption about others identities, which means that it comes from society, not the individual. Also, these assumptions can be wrong AND SEXIST. The assumption that a person wearing a dress is automatically a woman is wrong AND SEXIST. A man can wear dresses and still be a man. You're conflating the shared assumption of an individual with the actual physical characteristics of that individual and promoting SEXISM. — Harry Hindu

Well, i apologize. Using "social construct" when i was just talking about how we use it in a social setting (which, to clarify, is what i'm asserting is more accurate) was clearly wrong on my behalf-albeit i do not get how i'm promoting sexism since i was not talking about people acting stereotypically like the other gender. (In your example, that is still a man since he, even if we grant that he can make a woman's voice and can look like a woman, does not "act that way" and does not feel that way.)

And I already pointed out that people's own identities about themselves can be wrong. Some people are delusional. Some people think that they are a special creation of some god. Telling them that they aren't is no different than telling a man who thinks he's a woman that he isn't. — Harry Hindu

Is it? For example, a transwoman's belief that she is a woman is not really like a delusional belief: It is an inherent aspect of the person that believes it and it comes from a psychological/neurological difference from the others that it is a core aspect of it -it is not simply someone believing an extraordinary thing later in life (and it is also based around a more defensible claim, i.e. their gender is different).
In your example, them believing they are a special creation of some god (assuming it is not an unrelated insult at religions and it is about a person who believes they were created by god in a particularly very special fashion) is not a core aspect of the person- it would not have been that way if the culture was different, they would have believed something extraordinary instead. But the transwoman would have still believed only that and, if she was allowed to transition, would not have gone back to being a man after some consideration. If you fed into a delusional person's beliefs, they would have only grown more unstable and not more stable. That is not what we observe with trans people unless discrimination is involved.

He has to come to that realization himself, but he can't make me use words that don't represent my identity. I am a man - a human male. His declaration of being a woman makes my (and everyone else who identifies the same), use of the word, "man" and "woman" incoherent. — Harry Hindu

That's mainly because you (and everyone else who identifiesthe same) equate being a man with having certain genitals and being a woman with having another set of genitals. Of course, from that perspective, that person will be a "man"-but a man that dresses like a woman, sounds like a woman, literally has boobs and the curves of a woman, has a generally feminine body and prefers to be on the girl side of things nonetheless.

I would say that a social perspective of gender ("gender as a social construct") can more accurately represent those kinds of situtations than a simple biological definition.

(1) If God exists, God provided moral values and duties to humans
(2) Humans wrote canonical texts based on God's instructions
(3) Canonical texts demonstrate the moral values and duties provided by God (1,2 HS)
(4) People shared the canonical texts to spread the moral values and duties provided by God
(5) These canonical texts, moral values, and duties exist now (3,4 HS)
(6) God exists now (1,5 HS) — Beoroqo

That is not formal logic and the none of the consclusions follow. And, to top it all of, (2) is just circular. You might as well just say:
1) If canonical moral texts supposedly written based on God's instructions exist, then God exists.
2) Canonical moral texts supposedly written based on God's instructions exist.
3) Therefore, God exists.

The premise 1 equals if objective moral values and duties exist, then God exists. If so, objective moral values and duties are necessary for God’s existence. — KrystalZ

Nope. This is not "Objective moral values and duties exist.⟺ (iff/if and only if) God exists." Those are different things. Let us examine the first premise again:
"If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist."
Let's say "God does not exist" is "P" and "Objective moral values and duties do not exist." is Q.
Since this is an "if" statement, we have the following truth table:

Possible Truth Values
P: 1 0 0
Q: 1 1 0

If this statement is true, you could not have "God does not exist" to be true and "objective moral values do not exist" to be false at the same time but the other possibilites can still be true. That is literally what this statement tells you. You could have God exist but objective moral values can still not exist.

Coming back to the original argument, the only logical and possible moves by the atheists seem to be:
1- Showing that "God does not exist" can be true but "Objective moral values do not exist" would have to still be false. It would mean that whetever objective values exist or not does not depend on God.
2- Not accepting the second premise.
3- Showing that there is an objective moral value while assuming god does not exist.

2. If you accept a sufficiently mature conspiracy theory, then you’ll come to doubt various people and institutions that have been set up to generate reliable data and evidence, then you’ll also have good reason to doubt the various people and institutions that generated the data and evidence for the conspiracy theory. — ModernPAS

I would like to see the justification for this. Yes, we would also doubt the data and the evidence for the conspiracy theory, but that assumes that those are the same kinds of doubts and we have the same kinds of evidence for both of them. If they were the same, we would not have believed in the conspiracy theory in the first place. If the evidence for the conspiracy theory outweighs the evidence against it, then this would simply be invalid. (And if the evidence against the conspiracy theory was higher than evidence for it, then we would not have even seriously considered it.)

3. If you must believe that you have good reason to doubt the basic claims of other religions—for example, that they lack direct, public evidence for their supernatural claims—then you must believe that you have good reason to doubt the supernatural claims of your own religion. — ModernPAS

Well, a believer would not say that the other religions are false because they lack direct and public (What is "public" evidence anyways?) evidence, but because they lack more indirect evidence. As for their religion being true, maybe it's because the scriptures have true scientific claims, maybe -for Christanity- because there is historical evidence to suggest the miracles happened, maybe because it says things that make the most sense...

11. If a belief is contradictory, then it is unfalsifiable. — ModernPAS

Is a belief in (P'^P) unfalsifiable then? Because that is what "contradictory" is and i am sure any contradictory belief is false as, by definiton, they require two opposing propositions that can't be true together to be true together.
That does not seem to be true to me.

14. If a belief is unfalsifiable, then it is a kind of conspiracy theory. — ModernPAS

Is every belief that is unfalsifiable a conspiracy theory? For example, let's assume that i believe there is a malicious demon out there that can deceive us anytime he wants. Since we can not prove that this malicious demon does not exist, then it is unfalsifaible and it must be a conspiracy theory. I believe most people would consider this to be false.

Well, i was more thinking in terms of a person thinking "I prayed everyday that my mother would survive cancer, and she eventually did." Whetever theism is true or not, i would say that there is no reason to assume prayer started the proccess that led to the mother surviving cancer in this case. Such an argument still assumes there is a necessary casual relationship between the two-hence the fallacy.

As for your general example, that is a more complicated matter since then we would be talking about a thing that can't be easily explained by nature. If one is a theist, assuming that that is the result of God "guiding them" in that case would not be such a fallacy in my view as the possible casual relationship and a lack of natural explanations (or more unlikely ones) is already there.

"Post Hoc, Propter Ergo Hoc" (after this, therefore because of this) Fallacy comes to mind. This is a fallacy where you assume that, just because, X occurred after Y, then X must've occurred as a result of Y. For example, assuming that, just because you prayed for one big thing to happen and the big thing happened doesn't mean the big thing happening was a result of your prayer.

Well, you said that education of young women was the best line of attack for these sort of problems-it was not "alongside" global issues. Do i need to quote you?
Again, your main claim was that we should focus our resources on the education of young women as a way to combat overpopulation. "Saving whales" and "saving carbon footprint" was mentioned alongside the problems it can adress.

I'm simply asking you why brought gender up spesifically when 1) It was not really relevant. 2) Solving gender discrimination in education isn't the main problem-educating people in general is.
I do not understand how you do not get this.

Empowering girls and women is good and all, but you said we should divert our resources to young women's education and not that we should, while dealing with the education of all people regardless of gender, deal with gender discrimination too. The central part of your solution was educating young women, not education in general. I'm against that as it is sexist and just counter-productive.

Nope. That was not my objection-of course, education of young women should not be neglected and they should be helped. But that's not the issue here.

Please read what i've written more carefully. I was talking about your insistence on "focusing our resources on young women's education", which i think should be elaborated upon and also why we're talking about one gender in particular and neglecting the other.

If we are going to put about the same amount of resources on young women's education compared to young men's education, then why bring gender up?
If we are going to put much more of our resources on young women's education compared to young men's, then i would argue that it's sexist and this particular line of reasoning needs to be justified. "If we educate young women, the rate of poverty etc. falls." doesn't provide enough justification here, as the same applies to young men.

Because when resources are focused toward the education of young women the outcomes are far greater in many areas of society (as mentioned). — I like sushi

I would only accept this statement if it was rephrased as "When resources are focused towards the education of people in general, the outcomes are far greater in many areas of society." because, so far, you have not provided justification for why we should "focus our resources on young women's education".
Also, what does it mean to "focus resources on young women's education"? Will we be diverting more resources to education of women than to education of men? That would be sexist.

I apologize. I was simply talking about the fact that you focused on women when there was really no need to do so. I want to know why you did that.

I generally agree with what you're saying here, but there is one issue:

You're taking a general trend -the inverse relationship between education and having children and the correlation between education and poverty, socially inequality etc.- and then start talking as if it only applies to a smaller group -women- in the general set of causes for the trend. There is no need for an emphasis on women as if they are the general factor compared to men who have a lesser effect in that narrative.

— Zelebg

Without random element chance is not involved at all. — Zelebg

A thing could happen by chance without any random elements-that is the position of an indeterminist. That's what i thought you were referring to when you said "randomness". Because, if not, why bring it up at all? You're just confusing people with that. You could just say "chaotic but still deterministic".

"Brain waves" are representation of the full state of mind, I also call it "identity", which includes memory, personality, current mood, preferences, the way how a person thinks, feels, and of course also defines the way how to makes choices. Brain waves, i.e. identity/personality or 'state of mind' is the determiner — Zelebg

Before moving on (i still haven't been able to decipher your position, at least we know you aren't an event-casual-libertarianist now) to an objection, what do you mean by the state of mind -Why did you even bring up the mechanism then? being a "determiner"? Are you saying that it is a substance of it's own independent of causation?

Answer 1.) Does not compute due to false definition and other semantic issues. — Zelebg

What "false definitions" am i using when i didn't even give a definition? I am literally just asking a question that i got from a book written by 4 very prominent philosophers on the subject (Robert Kane, Derk Pereboom etc.).
Anyways, if you want to me to satisfy whatever criteria you are putting forward, let me try it again, this time detailedly:
Is there a possible world where every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature and free will
exists?

Answer 2.) No. Deliberation is determination. Indeterminism is only randomness. — Zelebg

Okay. And, since free will exists, determinism, the negation of indeterminism, is true. And, since determinism and free will are both true, then we also got answer to our first question-you're a compabilist. (or you do not get what indeterminism is, in which case, i suggest you first learn about it before talking about it since that's a pretty major aspect of free will)
Thanks for the answer.

Well, let me rephrase it then:
"That reason is spesific to low-income families that do not have a good standard of living. What about the other ones?"

By the way, i appreciate your welcome.

Please take a look at the opening post and notice how different patterns or "receptors" represent different affinities or probabilities for that option to be choosen. — Zelebg

Then it's indeterministic (i.e. the causes do not "determine" which option will be choosen) and which option will be choosen is entirely out of the agent's control. The exact mechanism doesn't matter.

I defined the concept in certain terms and posed the question framed in thosee terms. I can not respond to your objection without first discussing the semantics of the terms you use. It would be much easier if you could just answer the question directly:

If this is not free will, then what exactly is it I am not free from? — Zelebg

You are not free from, in this case, luck. You are a result of the proccess and not a determiner (unless you're saying you are the thresholds and and not seperate from them).

Anyways, maybe you should answer the following questions:
1) Is determinism compatible with free will?
2) Does indeterminism give us what we need for free will?
Answering those will help us understand what you are talking about and whetever you are a Compabilist (a person who believes that determinism is compatible with free will) or a Libertarianist (a person who believes determinism is not compatible with free will free will exists nonetheless, i.e. actions are not deterministic events).

I would say that this only applies to low-income families in poor countries.
There are generally no such things like that involved in the majority of the cases-i.e. the middle or the upper classes. Saying this applies to most of the cases would be a faulty generalization.

How would that work then? If it's the same rate and simultaneous, then they would finish at the exact same time. Then, our choice would still be random-just more chaotic since the choice receptors do not affect the outcome and the factors that matter are different. So, it's still random.
Anyways, the issue is not solely the fact that it's random. If one assumes that it's not random (if it was partially random, my objection would've still stood), then it would just be deterministic and the objection would've been that our character would only be a result of our environment/genetics. In any of the cases, agent doesn't have any responsibility over what alternative happens since whetever an alternative occurs or not doesn't have anything to do with the agent-it is either based on other factors, luck or a combination.

Well, the neurological accuracy aside, this kind of free will is random. The outcome is based on luck, and, more importantly, factors (and luck) that we do not have any kind of control over. That's to say, we are not free from luck.

Well, it's because we are psychologically predisposed to having children.

Howewer, is there really no logical reason to have children? Because having children ensures that society goes on, which i think is necessary for whatever you think morality should be aiming for.

"If it accomplishes that already, i.e. making the victim's family feel better, it would at least accomplish something."
Yes, it would at least accomplish something, howewer, that something is not really what we were trying to do.

"Diyya (victim compensation) (or forgiveness) is an optional alternative to qisas (equal retaliation), but it is not mandatory..."

The victim's family will not readily think of forgiveness (or victim compensation) as an act of atonement for themselves, if the perpetrator does not repent. Again, this system has thousands of years of mileage. It was already included in the Torah. I have never heard anybody with first-hand, practical experience with the system, heard complaining about it."

Well, probably because they either wanted revenge anyways or there wasn't first-hand experience in the first place. Or are you talking about the "pay fine or go to the prison" system?
Anyways, that still doesn't solve the problem since only ones who would've repented regardless would've repented honestly, while the others would just meet death -or what they caused to the victim, if you want to take the more literal reading of "an eye for an eye"-. I suspect that people will not repent honestly just because they will meet death.

Also, what about the family's general attitude? In your system, if someone wants to repent and is honest about it, he or she may still get physical punishment-merely because the family didn't believe in money and thought "Money won't bring our member back." And, if a family is forgiving, they can forgive an unhonest repenter and ask for little to no money-thus the problem would still persist. You can't expect, for example, a murder victim's family to always behave rational.

As for the other option, "qisas", that needs justfying in itself that doesn't contradict the option for the victim compensation. There doesn't seem to be one, i'm afraid.

Well, there is another problem with the Islamic system-: What does it accomplish, exactly, besides making the victim's family -since this is mostly about murder- feel better, if the person pays the money? Them paying will not change their behaviour and won't deter them from doing such things in the future, and is only defendable if one commits to the assumption that punishment is carried out in order to get revenge, which in itself is suspect to heavy doubt and i would like you to justify why we should think of punishment in that way.

Also, no, to convert it to formal language -which doesn't need to be done in pure code and i do not get the need to use Coq since classical logic would probably be fine, but that's another matter-, you need to figure out what the text meant by certain statements so that you can use them but that requires textual interpreation. Albeit, even if you did convert it to formal language, none of our relevant problems would have been solved as the premises would've still needed justification.

"Voluntary Empathy", at least in the sense you're presenting it, doesn't seem to be the real to me. While psychopaths do make moral judgements -and, like you said, compassionate ones-, that is generally based on egoism and are merely coincidences rather than genuine intent.

Although, yes, some empathy is selective-they need much more than simply a reaction that is the case in emotional empathy (which just requires a reaction). But, when emotional empathy is lacking, such compassionate acts seem to be lacking as well-that is the case with people who have Narcisstistic Personality Disorder (who have cognitive empathy, which is understanding of other's mental states, but lack the emotional counterpart) and Antisocial Personality Disorder (the same as before).

My objection would be that the consclusion is different from what the premises entail.
Premise: Moral actions are voluntary.
Premise: Empathy-based-actions are involuntary.
Therefore, empathy-based-actions aren't moral.

Howewer, while this gives us a ground for thinking that actions based on feelings of extreme empathy are not good -which is counterinitutive, but that's besides the point-, this doesn't give us the ground to say that whetever an empathy can't be a logical basis for an action. Those are two different things. While the first simply says that, when judging a person's action from the perspective of morality -and, consequently, thinking about whetever the person should be praised for doing it-, involuntary things shouldn't be taken into consideration. But the second statement is about the evalutation of whetever we should do an action or not and that doesn't require that we do an action simply as a result of our empathy. That seems to be an important distinction to me.
So, in other words, it feels like a non-sequitur.