people have free will

If we are puppets, who is the puppet master? God? But Sam Harris is an atheist." I think you may have taken that out of context. It means puppet to causality! It means that you are free as long as you do not care how your decision was made (free will or not) I think that's what he meant anyways! "No, free will does not imply no constraints." If you see free will as the choices you make then you are right. But free will implies a freedom to make choices based off of pure freedom. If you knew that all of your choices were simply an event that you were merely witness to, it would imply that you are bound to past causes without free choices! Simply not agreeing is not evidence against this proposal! Your argument is that the choice to go left or right is "Free will" I'm saying it is merely making a choice with extreme limitations while assuming it was made freely! This is an illusion! Your choice was not made by "you" but external factors that you are unaware of! Sam perfectly illustrates this by pointing out that what "you" are is subject to debate! You see a conscious decision made by "you" and manifested into reality. But you fail to see how you were just part of an event that made "you" when you made your choice! "there are still choices we can make that are not determined by outside factors. One could argue that people have less free choice than they think they have. People can be manipulated or forced. But we are not manipulated or forced all the time. There are still plenty of things we can choose freely." I disagree! Mostly because I cannot imagine an example where a choice was not manipulated or "forced"! I have wrestled with this idea many times and have always come to the conclusion that our choices are entirely circumstance driven! Never have I seen what you are calling "free will". You are almost diluting the concept by calling choices free will! If "free will" is just choices, intentions and efforts, then there wasn't anyway I could win! I was doomed out of the gate (in your mind)! I am trying to prove that "free will" is a concept that derives from biblical thinking. In this standard "you" are the author of your own existence. Every choice you make is weighed and judged. Through this madness we get the concept of "free will" That is why I am arguing this from an atheistic perspective! "Sometimes we make a choice that goes against the path of the least resistance." I can see why you would think that. However, I think we are talking about "counter choices" Where you make a decision in opposition to the path most traveled. This does not invite "free will" to create a new path. A new path is taken but out of opposition! Even your choice to take that path was all part of a chain of causes where you simply react! You may not be witness to why you chose to carve the new path of least resistance but it was not made freely! "the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in the fullest manner necessary for moral responsibility" That is what you, Dennet, and Harris and I imagine when you say "free will"! We are not lost on this concept. This is also the biblical concept. It means that you have free conscious control to be judged for your actions! Even if we find a sense of justice in this idea. It is an illusion. It is cohesive as morality. Where no objective morality actually exists. "I just made the free choice to respond to your arguments." I do appreciate that. It is most obviously not a free decision. Many factors contributed. Many we can even see (like me asking you) What else were you going to do? Ignore me? Still an external factor made that decision. You just watched your body type it :) "Addiction certainly limits a person free choice. But some people have chosen to quit the addiction and some of them were successful. Yet others decided they do not want to quit. Addiction is like a cage. You can still make free decisions, but fewer of them. " Here's a formula I want to try out! "Free will"= dividing by zero! It is illogical. It does not make sense in the model of our observable universe! A drug addict is the epitome of choices being made for you. Just imagine you are under the same amount of control as a drug addict.. Now imagine the amount of control that a healthy, highly intelligent 22 year old female would have over drugs! Even her choice to not use drugs was made by several factors that she had no awareness of (like preconceived notions that "drugs are bad") Either way she was only a witness to the event that took place where the choice to use drugs was presented and then rejected! So even at peak health and mental awareness. You still do not make "Free choices" only choices! Like picking which person to vote for in this debate! " we can keep religion out of this. Actually, even within Christianity there is controversy whether free will exists or not. Some will say that God knows everything and there can not be free will, others say that people have free will to go ("sin") against God." I bring religion into this because I believe that you unknowingly get your definition from the bible! It is ingrained into us from Christian influences! I just happen to be good at seeing through it! It is a manipulative device designed to enslave! Dramatic but very true! Christianity struggling with "free will" actually solidifies my point. Even the people who claim to be Christians are debating the only thing that makes us accountable for our own salvation! Kind of topples the house of cards if you ask me! I will not be attacking your beliefs here so I don't think it is Ad hominem to believe "free will" is a biblical idea and that you are actually defending the Christian doctrine! "But again this is mostly a dispute about the definition of free will." Like I said. I think we are on the same page here. That is why I called it an illusion! I am implying that you believe in free will. But it is not real!( In the definition you gave). What you and Dennet seem to be agreeing to is the degree of choices and not "free choices"! How much control do we have? That has nothing to do with free will in this case! "Free will" implies making choices through the eyes of perfect knowledge! You would have to see every cause that had brought you to your choice. So I think we can both say with confidence that we do make choices. We just do not have "free will" in the sense of the word! " All Harris has to do is change his naive definition of free will. " Again he is trying to imagine the widely excepted view of free will (which is pretty much your view) What most people think including Harris. All he had to do was think about it subjectively to find the thread to unravel "free will"! "It is more logical to adept his notion of free will, then to completely throw it out of the window. " You are then just changing the definition to choices intentions and efforts! Which is not what free will asserts! 2+2+5