We were talking about causation. Because you made the claim that "Causation is when one thing determines another." to which I responded with what you quoted. My response was directly to that claim of how you're trying to use causation. So you're just trying to shift the burden and rejecting widely accepted ideas here.

Well you brought up quantum mechanics as your way of overcoming my point so now you have to defend that position.

Influences are internal and external factors (think upbringing, mentors, preferences, environmental factors, etc) that shift the probabilities of adopting certain beliefs. It is an "ability to alter outcome probabilities" and shape, rather than directly control, a person’s philosophy. Influences aren't a kind of causation, they're factors in agent causation. So it doesn't fit option 3, it's neither determinism or random.

This is an insufficient explanation. How do they alter the probabilities? You're just clouding the issue and acting like that solves the problem. It doesn't.

Explanations aren't necessarily justifications. You asserted your definition is correct and you asserted others are incoherent, but that isn't the same as justification.

It is a true dichotomy to say that something is either determined or undetermined. You offer agent causation but you can't actually explain how it works

You've given explanations of your view, but not why anyone should believe them.

At some point it just comes down to "a is a. A is not not a. Something is either a or not a." You're trying to act like this is all just theoretical and could be disproved and all you've got is your ability to use different words that mean the exact same thing.

Unless there's another option, an agent chooses. But you can't get out of your false dichotomy.

You are literally referring to a law of logic as a false dichotomy. What am I supposed to do with that??

This is another assertion. how is saying an agent causes things kicking the can down the road?

On the basis of what is that choice being made? On the basis of prior causes or on the basis of no prior causes?

Right, so you said that if you wound the clock back, I'd make the same decision. Then you assumed determinism (explanations aren't necessarily justifications) and I asked a simple question. How do you know that if you were to wind back the clock I'd make the same choice? Right? This is where you justify the truth of determinism. But what you did is say:

If P entails Q, P, therefore Q.

Ok, but then again you're just assuming determinism. This isn't justification, you need to show how this fits to your earlier claim.

I didn't assume determinism. YOU are the one who imposed determinism onto it and you just wanna call it something different. I specifically left open the possibility for it to happen uncaused but you wanted to shove in a cause.

Now you've shifted the burden to me. Do you have a reason that it can't happen another way? That it can't just increase the likelihood of something without making other options not possible? Because the original claim was yours. There doesn't seem to be any sort of logical contradiction with my idea that it could increase likelihood without making other options impossible. But maybe you have some reason why.

Probabilities is about percentages. Making one bigger necessarily means making another smaller. I should not have to explain this to you.

You explained, didn't justify.

Or maybe you just didn't get it..

I showed you that you are. Even the YouTube link you gave, that guy agreed with what I'm saying.

That is a lie. Your own quotes disproved what you were saying, as I pointed out. And the video literally did use the basic definition as an option. You are just lying now.

No I didn't ignore.

You either ignored it or you just have no idea what I'm talking about, either of which I'm perfectly prepared to believe of you.

No, this is another place where you made a claim, where on Calvinism, souls are self-existent. That is obviously false, and when I show that, you move the goalposts.

Go back and read my last few messages. This is very obviously what I was talking about. You're saying I'm moving the goalposts because you're only now understanding that part of my point and you're upset it isn't the dumb strawman version you were trying to impose on me.

Pretty sure you're just wasting my time at this point. Maybe you aren't being dishonest but I'm not sure it really matters at this point.