Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Jal]

But that wasn't the argument. It's not that DETERMINISM needs the correlation, i.e., such correlation is not part of determinism's definition.

Which is precisely the problem for the species. To survive the frailty of life and the ravages of Nature, the species NEED such correlations.  Therefore determinism is false. THAT is the argument.

Yeah, I don't know what your argument is.  An a priori correlation isn't needed for hunger to work just the way it does under determinism without free will.

That conclusion seems unreasonable because it seems too unlikely.  I've tried to explain why, but maybe I'll take another stab at it later today.

[Angrboda]

You believe in free will which states that one can always choose.   It being hard to do something isn't the same as it being impossible.

No I don't assume that. In fact it clashes with one of my most fundamental beliefs, namely that in heaven God will inflame our hearts with passions too intensely holy for any further violation of conscience. Sin will be impossible in heaven. Radical freedom is only for the here and now and, even here it is not always absolute, for example an addict suffers a severely reduced freedom to resist the drug.

In heaven we'll be free to choose among various good options (e.g. chocolate or vanilla ice cream) but we'll be too holy to opt for sin.

Sounds pretty deterministic to me.

[Jal]

No I don't assume that. In fact it clashes with one of my most fundamental beliefs, namely that in heaven God will inflame our hearts with passions too intensely holy for any further violation of conscience. Sin will be impossible in heaven. Radical freedom is only for the here and now and, even here it is not always absolute, for example an addict suffers a severely reduced freedom to resist the drug.

In heaven we'll be free to choose among various good options (e.g. chocolate or vanilla ice cream) but we'll be too holy to opt for sin.

Sounds pretty deterministic to me

Ok. Sure. I never said the debate is 100% freedom versus 100% determinism.

On the contrary, earlier I described my mechanical body as "deterministic" meaning cause-effect alone, but it's ANIMATED by a material soul endued with a high measure of freedom. Human motility is always a mixture of freedom and determinism.

[Fake Messiah]

First you'd have to prove evolution.

Well I don't think angels administer that push. But I opine that Yahweh does.

You see, this is your fear of science (it's making your god useless).

After Yahweh spent 4 billion years learning how to create and manage the species, He special-created Adam and Eve. In other words Adam and Eve lacked human parents.

The fossil record, genetics and other evidence doesn't show a wizard creating animals, but rather them evolving by themselves.

Too much dogmatism in the scientific community.

Science is the opposite of dogma as it is based on experiments and challenging ideas.

Sure. Anything is possible. You do know the difference between possibility and proof, right?

Indeed, you would need to see a psychiatrist to determine which exact mental disorder you have for engaging with an imaginary being.

[Angrboda]

Like "such and such is mumbo jumbo" or "such and such is gibberish."  Religious people claiming to know more than they know is a problem.

Fair point, but at one juncture or another, I always eventually qualify my claims with, "This is my opinion."  I'm not really 100% sure of anything, whether in religion or science. 

But I'm pretty sure that 2 + 2 = 4, and I'm pretty sure that the intangible won't push tangible matter, and that the shortest distance is a straight line.

The thing with science, though, is it's transparent, you could discover the evidence and reasoning involved. So dismissing it on account of incredulity is simply laziness. You are justified in being skeptical, but that's not the same as dismissing it, which is what your OP requires. In other words, you've pretended to know more than you do.