let's say you think there is a chance that 'determinism' is the reality
False dichotomy. Those aren't the only two choices.
If determinism is the reality, how the **** would you know?
Well, people have been researching this, you see:
All your clever tools for thinking, logic, reason, philosophical truisms, etc., would just be the false pre determined patterns in your brain that you have no way of determining whether they are True or false. They are just the way you are predetermined to see things.
What's the logical connection betwen "false" and "predetermined"? This appears to be an assumption that needs to be examined more closely.
A is A? How do you know that? There may be some predetermined rule that says on the 100,000th time you look, A may actually be B.
Now we're getting warmer, I think. Scientific knowledge is by nature inferential, and thus, unlike dogmatic religious claims, never 100% conclusive. It's always subject to fresh observations. Nevertheless, as long as you've observed A to be A 99,999 times, you're obligated to report it thus. If you observe it to be otherwise in the next observation, then you're obligated to report that, too. I don't see where the free will debate has any connection, come to think of it.
no matter how cold and sterile it leaves them
Maybe this is closer. It seems to point to both a fundamental lack of awareness of the human side of mathematicians' lives, and perhaps a latent emotive element driving you to cling to a god concept. Perhaps. What makes you think mathematicians are "cold and sterile"? Among the things that can be said with greatest certainty are mathematical and formal logical proofs, and they're profoundly distinct from theories derived from observation. In any event, Gödel's two incompleteness theorems show that even they ultimately rest on unproveable axioms.
All this said, there's a shitload of observational data, and none of it points with any logical credibility towards any god. In order to use what has been observed to support a god hypothesis, logical fallacies are required. Which is what I've been pointing out in your arguments.
But If determinism is the reality, I can save myself the trouble of thinking about 'it' and just say 'whatever
You don't see the logical contradiction in this?
it's all predetermined. And therefore, it's not debatable.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Non sequitur.