free will

The conclusion follows from (1) and (2). Do you accept (1) and (2)?

Your conclusion does not follow.

How doesn't it?

Because rational thought and choice are not synonymous. 

Given the way things are. That is rather the whole point of this thread I believe.

 I am telling the truth. It is fallacy to point out nonfallacies as fallacies. 

Pleas I'm begging you look up formal logical fallacies and familiarize yourself with the more common ones.

Your objection to the argument is not clear to me. Beliefs, like determinism, could not be rationally accepted because the forces that would determine which beliefs are accepted are not rational. 

The issue is not with accepting things rationally it is with choosing to accept them rationally. 

I think you are getting confused between feeling compelled to accept the position that's most rational and the force that controls which beliefs you accept. If the force that controls which beliefs you accept is not rational then your beliefs cannot be rationally accepted.

It is a fallacy to misidentify fallacies.

What I am saying is the truth, and your inability to discern creation from the uncreated does not invalidate the necessity of the uncreated existing.

A position being the most rational can be the force which compels you to accept it. You DO NOT choose what is rational you come to realize what is most rational. 

I understand what you are saying. Your contention here is that if your conclusions are determined by mindless forces your conclusions must be determined mindlessly. This does not logically follow however since you have a mind and your mind determines your conclusions (which is not to say that it in any way chooses your conclusions) and without that mind there would be no conclusions in the first place.

Unless of course you are arguing that nothing is rational. Is that the case?

You have never tried to understand my actual objections as far as I know. 

Conclusions occur in the mind. We both agree on that.

Are beliefs (which occur in the mind) accepted as a result of mindless chemical reactions or are beliefs accepted as a result of some independent agency? 

What do you mean by independent agency? I think you are implying that deterministic chemical reactions and rational thought are mutually exclusive but you have not demonstrated that they are.

Well, help me to understand.

You have given me no reason to think that you care about my actual objection. 

If asking you to help me understand is no reason to you, I can't help but think that maybe your delusion stems from you being unreasonable.

But here I am asking again, hoping that maybe you are more reasonable than it would appear.

Help me to understand.

By independent agency I mean a faculty of consciousness that has room to rationally accept beliefs. 

When I claimed that determinism could not be rationally accepted if it was indeed true, you said you disagreed with that claim. Please explain how determinstic chemical reactions are a force that can rationally accept beliefs.

That you think asking for evidence of your claims is "unreasonable" is a big part of the problem. 

Why would an organic brain which runs on chemical reactions be unable to have this capacity?

Isn't the fact that this appears to be the case enough? Honestly I don't know how human brains work any more than you do but they appear to be deterministic chemical engines which are able to rationally accept beliefs.

Because chemical reactions are deterministic.

The fact that we appear to rationally accept beliefs is enough evidence to justify the belief that we rationally accept beliefs. The problem is not our seeming ability to rationally accept beliefs though. The problem for determinists is the incompatibility between determinism and rationally accepting beliefs. Under determinism, all beliefs that people accept would be the result of mindless forces and since mindless forces cannot rationally accept beliefs, our beliefs could not be rationally accepted. 

Why is it incompatible? Just because we cannot decide what is rational? I have news for you. You do not decide what is rational either way. Conclusions are either rational or not. Your acceptance of them does not change this.

You can't say the Ultimate Reality exists, which is very unreasonable. You asking for evidence concerning this is also unreasonable.

There is nothing reasonable about nihilism. Even entertaining it is irrational. 

Still waiting for you to help me understand.

Because under determinism, all beliefs that people accept would be the result of mindless forces and since mindless forces cannot rationally accept beliefs, our beliefs could not be rationally accepted.

Here is my claim: if determinism is indeed true, nobody could rationally accept it.

I don't see how pointing out that conclusions are either rational or not rational solves the problem.

. 

Im not talking about reality existing. That is not the claim I am talking about.

Can brains rationally accept beliefs, yes or no?

I keep asking you to help me understand.