This is why the term hard incompatibilism is better.

I use this term when talking technically to other free will philosophers, but find determinist is better understood by others.

Wiki definition:

While hard determinism clearly opposes the concept of free will, some have suggested that free will might also be incompatible with non-determinism (often on the basis of lack of control associated with pure randomness).[10][11][12] This is hard incompatibilism, and has been used as an argument against Libertarian incompatibilism.

Under the assumption of naturalism and indeterminism, where there only exists the natural world and that the natural world is indeterministic — events are not predetermined (e.g., for quantum mechanical reasons) and any event has a probability assigned to it — no event can be determined by a physical organism's perceived free will, nor can any event be strictly determined by anything at all.

Hard incompatibilism differs from hard determinism in that it does not commit to the truth of determinism.[13] By and large, supporters of hard incompatibilism accept both libertarian critiques of compatibilism and compatibilist critiques of libertarianism.

""nothing to show how the agent can be the originator of a causal "chain" - I have have given multiple examples."

I struggle to see anything that can be called an example.

I think much of your final para is wrapped up in the 80-20 problem.

""On the other hand, it stands to pretty good reason that the universe does cause things." - Yep, no one is arguing this. The argument is whether a given set of inputs always causes the exact same thing."

All this does is allow for random indeterminism. I have no problem with this, it doesn't help libertarian free will at all.

""B Theory of time applies as evidence" - Not really clear how you are applying this theory as evidence. "

Are you aware of the block universe idea? Our universe is a 4 dimensional state of affairs, and libertarian free will is simply incoherent. Her eis a very simple explanation of free will and the block universe:
http://tiffinomics.com/is-there-room-for-freewill...

Here, the writer is a compatibilist, so his free will is determined!

That piece fits into this larger and more explanatory piece:
http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2012/09/24/tim...

"1. Free Will Denying is often used in concert with questioning morality (as the podcast did). I would call anything undermining the whole notion of morality, an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence."

Whoah there. I would definitely suggest reading up on this. In moral philosophy it is very well known that there is no defeater for moral skepticism. If you don't want to read Sinnott-Armstrong's book on it, then his SEP piece is good:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-mora...

You see, after 3000 years it turns out that no one has given a problem free account of morality. All philosophical frameorks have problems. No one has disproved moral skepticism. So moral skepticism has actually more justified warrant.

We construct morality, and we also disagree a lot on it. There are naturalistic explanations of such within the realms of evolutionary biology and psycholgy, but this is funcitonal and doesn't help the abstract ontic reality proposed by so many for morality. As a conceptual nominalist, objective ontic morality is even less likely.

So far from your clain of extraordinary evidence etc, there is very warranted ordinary evidence. What is extraordinary is the intuitive belief that morality exists in some aether, out there. THAT's extraordinary. (for a good synopsis of this, see my chapter on morality in Christianity Is Not Great).

"2. FWD's tend to use the argument in concert with religion bashing (which Skepticule is doing). That inherently makes me suspicious of the arguer trying to solve for his true agenda. "

This might well be because FWD is almost a necessary, or at least a highly likely, result of naturalism.

"3. Opinion polls are useful to the exploratory discourse, but are not proof in and of themselves (truth is not a popularity contest...if it was, FWD would be the one's on the back foot)."

One cannot derive a deductive argument for sure. However, it is inductively very powerful. You sound like a climate denialists. Although all the experts in the relevant field, apart from agenda driven Republicans, agree there is global warming, I will deny it.

To not listen to the experts in the field on the matter who have dedicated their expertise to the matter is potentially an example of intellectual suicide. That is not shutting down the argument, but poointing out that consensuses are very important when they concern experts in the field of what you are talking about.

But this is exactly the issue. If a cause (qua set of causes/matrix) does not completely cause an effect, what is left to finish of the causation? If nothing, then the rest is, by definition uncaused!

This is dangerously close to what I call the 80-20 problem:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2012/10/03/...

"The podcast noted “The universe is a matrix of causality that is so intricately intertwined that the separate out causality is quite problematic” But the exclamation, “You bastard universe for causing that situation” is mixing levels."

Is it? In what sense? The levels you propose are mere assertions with no basis - a simple "could" (and i have not even looked rigorously into whether the could is actually a could).

On the other hand, it stands to pretty good reason that the universe does cause things. Take it away, and, well, you would have nothing. So it appears to be a necesssary cause.

Argument from Ignorance: Interestingly, if you want evidence, look no further than Relativity, since most physicists adhere to the B theory of time, and the BLock Universe, such that the universe is a 4 dimensional block. This then means that the past, present and future are all equally factual.

The arugment that it doesn't exist is that it defies logic. A decision cannot be caused. But without antecedent causality it literally makes no sense. This is why Dennett argues that LFW NEEDS determinism to be made any sense of! With any causality, what do you have? Please answer this. What reasons can there be for an event?

Without causality you are back to uncaused, which is synonymous with random, since there is no reason, no causal reaosning for such an event. you cannot defer to anything outside of the event!! This is simply meaningless.

Funnily enough, religious people understand this. Hence the Kalam Csomological Argument. They just conveniently forget this because the KCA invalidates LFW!

Burden of Proos: Actually, the burden of proof is usually on those not in the consensus view. And since 86% of philosphers deny LFW (with rather a lot of evidential and logical support), the burden of proof is on the LFWer. Interestingly, of the 14% remaining, almost all of them are religious.

You seem rather adamant of the weaknesses of our positions, but I am not sure you have presented anything of subtance here, with all due respect. There are assertions and coulds. But none of this really deals with the positive evidence, and with the logic of causality.

Look, you don't even need to understand the ontology of causality (which is hotly debated), but you understand what it means, what causality implies.

You have done nothing to show how the agent can be the originator of a causal "chain". This is the holy grail of the debate, and no one has ever shown this. Great thinkers lke Robert Kane and Roderick Chisholm have failed. Becuase to do so is to defy logic.

How does William Lane Craig do it? Hilariously, he posits the sould of the gaps, in effect. He admits that if he were a naturalist, he would deny free will. However, his mechanisms and logic for allowing free will are woefully inadequate.

Cheers

JP

Randomness: Again, you think this is all about determinism, when it is actually about fre will more accurately.

Definite Versus Probable: I am fairly sure that the studies were presented as evidence supporting determinism, or better, a lack of LFW. They are not proof. There is no such thing in philosophy as 100% proof. Only cogito ergo sum has this. Humans are chaotic systems with huge amounts of variables. But chaotic systems are generally understood to be deterministic. With this many variables, and without being able to control them all (pragmatically) then you get theories which do not work every time.

However, you look at identical twin studies, and you start to get the picture. Interesting how you don't deal with the actual data, and try to wedge a gap in terms of negative argumentation.

Discrete Levels: see my poijnt about about if not caused, then by definition uncaused, which does not help free will.

Hi Bruce

But even if what you say pans out, then you are denying causality 100% dominance, and thus, BY DEFINITION, you get UNcaused events. This is the dilemma of causality, because by denying causality, you admit uncaused events which are synonymous with random.

So whilst you may feel strong enough to get annoyed with me/us about this, you fall into the really quite common trap.

Randomness does not help.

The position is not one of determinism, but of denial of liertarian free will. This is why hard incompatibilism is a better, more accurate label (though i use it less simply because people do not understand it as easily as determinism, or even adequate determinism).

kudos for this, thanks!
My recent post ​The Two Organizations Trying to Destroy U.S. Science Education

I love Sean Carroll.

commented on your blog.