Determinism is a theory that states “that all events are governed by causal laws. In other words any events that happen in any stage of your life, happen because the law of nature led to the event. Base on this definition I find is difficult to understand how determinism take away an individual’s free will. Determinism got also be looked at as for every action one take there is a reaction that follow. I strongly disagree with the in compatibilism idea of had determinism. Therefore I am challenging the statement made earlier that “if determinism is true then free will does not exist” because it is an invalid statement that contradict itself. For the purpose of this argument we will use the universal definition of the word “Free Will”
…show more content…
If this is the case then there is a sense of inconsistence and by logic the argument is invalid. If you are a so call “hard determinism” then by my in compatibilism you are saying that feel will does not exist STOP. Invalid statement if you are a determinist the only thing that you agreed up on was that all “events are governed by causal laws. Now let me explain, if you visit a car dealer and you agree to pay ten thousand for the car through verbal communication. After you have agree to pay the ten thousand he that told you after you purchase that within that verbal communication you also agree to buy the other car for five thousands. This is the same concept with the explanation of determinism and compatibilism just because I agree with determinism it is invalid to say that I have to agree with compatibilism. In the case of the car dealership situation the customer only agree to by one car at the price of ten thousands not to by another care base on the within the original deal one car one price. If you send a contact and in that contact you agree to buy a car for ten thousand and another one five thousand and you sign that contact then you can hold the individual liable to buy both car. In the case of determinism and compatibilism there is no contact between the two. If I agree with one idea then you can’t
If this is the case then there is a sense of inconsistence and by logic the argument is invalid. If you are a so call “hard determinism” then by my in compatibilism you are saying that feel will does not exist STOP. Invalid statement if you are a determinist the only thing that you agreed up on was that all “events are governed by causal laws. Now let me explain, if you visit a car dealer and you agree to pay ten thousand for the car through verbal communication. After you have agree to pay the ten thousand he that told you after you purchase that within that verbal communication you also agree to buy the other car for five thousands. This is the same concept with the explanation of determinism and compatibilism just because I agree with determinism it is invalid to say that I have to agree with compatibilism. In the case of the car dealership situation the customer only agree to by one car at the price of ten thousands not to by another care base on the within the original deal one car one price. If you send a contact and in that contact you agree to buy a car for ten thousand and another one five thousand and you sign that contact then you can hold the individual liable to buy both car. In the case of determinism and compatibilism there is no contact between the two. If I agree with one idea then you can’t