The fact I can't conceive a confounding factor proves one doesn't exist??? That's not a great argument.
I didn't say that. I said one couldn't possibly be conceived, not that solely your inability to do so proves the point.
Nice strawman, though.
As I say, though, you keep making that assumption.
I'm not making any assumptions.
Essentially, someone could come up with a free decision they made, one which could have been different had they chosen for it to be so, and your response will simply be "nah, there's been environment and genes in play there, even though I can't truly show just how that happened".
Let me rephrase what you just said in a way that will hopefully demonstrate how ludicrous that paragraph is. I'll change the field of enquiry to make it clearer.
Essentially, someone could say 2+2 = 5 and your response will simply be "nah, there are certain axioms on which mathematical knowledge is necessarily based, even though I can't prove why they are axioms."
It's like arguing with a religious nut about the existence of God.
Debating sound deductive logic is like debating a religious nut? I'd like to meet the religious nuts you talk to.
Let's go wild as you suggest - if there's the possibility of an uncaused event, like the very first one as we logically believe there must have been, then why not the possibility that somewhere in our brain exists the ability to override a chain of events in there, or start a new chain of cause and events?
Because the brain is caused, and all of the information stored in the brain comes from genetics or environmental factors. You can't even conceive of a single piece of information that would arise in the brain without prior causes, nor can you conceive of any possible decision or scenario that would allow for free will. Indeed, no one has been able to.
Also, from an evolutionary standpoint - why this desire to believe we're in control? We know when we're not in a real situation, and become very uncomfortable with it (pretty much the premise behind Inception). We can tell the difference between a dream and reality. We have this absolute need to feel in control of what we do. If we never have been, why has that behaviour been one which has developed through natural selection, and why would it be seen as a helpful one to delude ourselves like that? I know there's flaws in just about every species in some way, but that one is pretty massive.
Why have we not evolved an immune system that will deal with cancer? I hate to break it to you, but evolution isn't a conscious process. It doesn't decide to weed out all undesirable traits. Many traits are maladaptive and they continue to be passed on through genetic and cultural transmission.
As I've said earlier, I actually reckon you might be right here, but it's purely speculation all round. You can't dismiss other arguments for flawed logic when the logic here isn't as solid as it would seem.
It isn't speculation. The logic is bulletproof, but you don't seem to accept the premise that all choices come from genes and environment. We know for near certainty that this is in fact the case. Holding out for the possibility that there may be some other factor that no one can even conceive of is perhaps more absurd than suggesting that we should only tentatively suggest that fairies don't exist.
Your objection is barren of any real content. Such Cartesian skepticism is utterly impractical, and would very likely leave you paralysed with fear if you truly approached knowledge in the way you seem to be suggesting.
