What do you believe?

Even if every person you spoke with had a reason for doing whatever they were doing, how did you determine the reason wasn't after the fact? It's easier to argue that our will comes prior to what we do than it is to argue that our reasons come prior to what we do. Again, when you're moving through a crowd do you need to clearly reason in your head that "I must move in between people so I don't bump into them" or do just do that without thinking about it? If you do that without thinking about it, then your will is more fundamental in your actions than your reasons are.

I don't think anyone says that. But its not a conviction. There is at least has some scientific evidence to back it up. If you havn't, read up on quantum mechanics. A lot of interesting and spooky stuff going on.

As I said it is not exhaustive or conclusive but it is sufficient. If however you come up with a post hoc justification for your behaviors/beliefs then you don't actually know where they come from. 

So we cannot say that more than determinism is at work but determinism is partly respond 

And we cannot say whether freewill is a factor at all.

If this statement has any specific logical flaws please let me know.

I think it has less explanatory power than the primacy of will.

Things that cannot be demonstrated have no explanatory power.

What do you mean by that?

Was I somehow unclear? If we can demonstrate cause and effect and we cannot demonstrate freewill then freewill has,no explanatory power which is less explanatory power than cause and effect inmuch the same way that gravity (which is demonstrable) has more explanatory power than any god(s) (which are undeminstrable.

Cause and effect and free will aren't mutually exclusive. Hard determinism and free will are mutually exclusive. 

Lmao this thread officially escaped my understanding and I stopped following it about a few days ago when I woke up and saw a hundred or so new posts were made on the topic of... what was the topic?... whether or not we are capable of sitting down and doing nothing all day long if we have something that we need to do, right? Something like that.

SE is not a conversation method I have abandoned but I have abandoned this thread. Sorry.

We were discussing whether reasons or will is more fundamental in causing human behavior. We didn't agree that hard determinism is the best explanation. If anything, how *different* human behavior is from determinism is evidence of non-determinism. 

I thought we agreed that a thing which does not exist can not be pointed to as an explanation/cause of something that does.

If that is the case then a logical consequence would seem to be that something which has not been demonstrated can not be pointed to as an explanation/cause of sonething which has been demonstrated.

Also you have not demonstrated that human behavior is not subject to determinism. You had in fact as much as admitted that it is. If there is more to it it falls to you to demonstrate that.

Determinism hasn't been determined to be the cause of human behavior. The laws of the physical universe are deterministic. We find ourselves in an environment that has deterministic laws. We aren't totally unaffected by our environment. Human behavior, however, is in stark contrast to deterministic laws. People at least have the strong illusion that they have free choices. The prima facie conclusions is that we can choose between different courses of action unless shown otherwise.

That being the case If there is more to it it falls to you to demonstrate that.

Cause and effect are not in dispute. Freewill is what must be demonstrated.

Cause and effect is not equal to hard determinism. Even if everything had a cause and effect this is still compatible with free will. Mental causation. It's prima facie true that we can choose between different courses of action. We notice a stark contrast between human behavior and deterministic laws.

Hard determinism is also subjected to the rationality problem.

P1) deterministic laws are not rational

P2) deterministic laws cause human thoughts and behaviors

C) human thoughts and behaviors are not rational

The logical implication is that hard determinism, if true, can't rationally be believed.

I do not agree with your conclusion. Neither self awareness nor the ability to recognize logic and use reason necessitate freewill unless you can show that the cause we have actually observed is insufficient.

I do not accept freewill prima facie. If your argument requires me too I'm not sure what to tell you.

I cannot accept your responses as rational. They are predetermined effect of chemistry and physics. Once you regain control of your thoughts and behaviors we can have a rational discussion. 

Unless you have chosen what you feel is the logical conclusion rather than following logical steps to what you feel is the logical conclusion logic is not an indicator of freewill. I am unaware of the difference between a rational argument and a logical one.

If you have simply chosen what you feel is logical I would argue that this is not as logical as following logical steps.

Your beliefs can't change and were determined during the Big Bang. You can't make rational statements, just automated responses determined by physics and chemistry.

This

Does not address this

Logic has a nearly predetermined course when used properly. No choices need to be made in order to employ logic. My capacity for logic is clearly not dependent on my freewill or lack thereof.

If you see a specific logical flaw in my reasoning point it out and offer a counterfactual.

Also my beliefs can and have changed. This is unconnected with freewill. Even if I was willing to grant freewill beliefs are a realization not a choice.

There would be no point since your thoughts are not rational - they are just predetermined by physics and chemistry. I am arguing with physics and chemistry. When you accept that premise, there is no rational discussion to be had.

We cannot "show otherwise" we can deduce//infer  it from;

1} our understanding of deterministic cause and effect,

2} energy --and all occupied space--- cannot be created nor lost.

Just as we deduce the existence of a macro-infinite, non-occupied space , that, embraces//surrounds our finite, occupied space Universe, from our experiences of all systemic and structural integrates  being finite.

We will never calculate the ultra-high number, --yet finite--, of inter-relationships of Universe's parts, nor can we ever map that ultra-high number --yet finite--   of ever changing patterns of inter-relationships, that they all produce.

I can be compelled by sufficient evidence to change my mind. In fact I would have no choice but to accept whatever the evidence proved. If you have no sufficient evidence however then there may in fact be no point.

A chemical reaction occurred.

Some chemical reactions are always taking place (in our local observable spacetime)

Another chemical reaction.

A simulation of what kind should be your question. I also believe there is a possibility this universe is a simulation... but, i would add a mix of lucid dreaming to that simulation. I would say it is a combination of the two. The hard part is understanding where it comes from. A simulation of a dream like state, can come in a couple ways. It can be a computer, it can be Solipsism, it can be a god/creator - but this gets complicated. Does this god dream us up? Which would be solipsism; Does this god make a marble and we are in that marble. Then the marble analogy is just as interesting bc that is correlative to a computer. Did it program us into marble? If it didn't, what does that look like? Is it imagining us into the marble, which is again correlative to solipsism. Or, are we all god? Is everything happening inside a cosmic consciousness? I might be missing some, but i prefer the cosmic and/or infinite consciousness version. Why, bc then a simulation of a lucid dream type is just happening within this consciousness. If this consciousness is infinite, than every possible world / reality is already happening and known. The question really then comes to is there layers? Do you have a true self, and do you get to control staying as yourself... i don't know, but i think it would be a logical outcome of an infinite mind to have individualized to avoid being fully solipsistic.