No, not many events, all.You are of course right that there is tremendous empirical evidence that many events are causally determined by previous events.
But this is not empirical evidence for determinism! Why ?
You've already admitted many events are determined causally by previous events, give me one event that has no cause... You're asking for empirical evidence of some non-existent event that needs to be tested? C'mon. (edit: remember, it has to be shown not to have a cause, not simply have an unidentified cause or unknown if it has a cause or not). Science has shown that causes exist, so if you want to come up with some other idea, show that non-causes do, not just undecided events.
This is not what I said at all, you're mistaking your own misunderstanding of what I said to be a logical fallacy. ALL events (that we know of at least) are caused by a previous event, 99.9% of these are generally accepted by the majority of society to be true. It would be the same as if all people we know of are white, there is no reason to believe in black people if we haven't found evidence for them yet, for example. They may be out there, but without evidence, pink is just as likely as black, and nothing more than more white people is just as likely as black or pink, etc. What they've done with the double slit experiment is find an unidentified color person, and people jump to conclusions that they must be a black or pink when (just using your example) all we've found evidence for is white. Something without a cause has never been shown scientifically, the most famous example of this is the notion of a god or gods, who created the universe and have no cause themselves for being there - and science just doesn't align with this kind of causeless superstition.IF many events are caused by a previous event THEN every event is caused by a previous event
No, it's not a fallacy or a mistake or false - if something can come into existence, no matter how small or big or undefined in size, without some cause telling it how, when, where, how much, etc, then it will be uncontrollable, unbound by time or any other variable, and this one 'something' would instantly be 'everything' (including everywhere). Looking at all the diversity and varying behavior around us, we can see non-cause is fiction.Logical fallacy...If something can come into existence that doesn't have a cause, not even a cause to tell it when or where to come into existence, then everything will be everywhere at all times.
If something can come into existence without cause, than that something can be everywhere at all times.
The first statement was false. and the rest of your theory doesn't make sense anymore...
It doesn't make sense in regard to reality because non-cause doesn't make sense, it's not the feedback the universe is giving us through our 5 senses and through scientific testing.
I thought this was self evident from my previous posts, as all science models determinism and there isn't even another notion raised by science. All things which have no cause come from speculation and assumption based on scientific results or on nonscientific results, the scientific results have never shown something to not have a cause. Scientific results have shown things to have a cause more times than I can fathom. A simple experiment showing that 'car engines perform better when in certain weather conditions because temperature effects core components' (totally made that up may or may not be true), and similar experiments show the cause-effect relationship of the universe every single day all the time. It's so redundant I don't know how you can't see this.Sorry both are logical fallacies, and you clearly haven't refute my statement:
Statement B: There is no scientific reason to believe that determinsm is true.