Determinism is compatible with free will

"Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event, is determined by a chain of prior occurrences. This means that determinism cannot have a beginning, for every event has to have more events that cause it to happen." Indeed this is quite perplexing, don't you say. If there is no beginning to these series of events, then there is no first cause. If there is no first cause, then this causal chain is infinite. This cannot be, for everything has a first cause. Primarily, look at motion. Motion is but the change from potentiality to actuality. A piece of cold wood, for example, is actually cold, but potentially hot. It can only be changed from potentially hot to actually hot by something already actually hot. A fire that is actually hot can change the potentially hot, but currently actually cold piece of wood, to a piece of wood that is actually hot. Something cannot go from potentially cold to actually hot by something that is only potentially anything-for that matter. So, it seems that something can only become actually from something potentially, thus, change occurs. This cannot go on forever, since something clearly must start this series of events for them to have taken place. It is clearly inconceivable to believe in an infinite causal chain with no beginning to set the series of events into action. As Thomas Aquinas says, "Unless there is a First Mover, there can be no motions. To take away the actual is to take away the potential". Also, Aquinas notes that the first mover is obviously God. This is where you are quite wrong in your assumption that there is no beginning to determinism (series of events as you correctly say). "1) Bob becomes a mercenary, Fred becomes a big business, and George becomes a mafia boss 2)Fred becomes friends with Bob 3) Fred offends the mafia 4) George asks Bob, who can get close to Fred, to kill Fred If any of these did not happen, this situation would have been avoided. The event is causually determined (this is determinism) by previous events." You say that these 4 premises causally determine that Bob will kill Fred, when in fact, they do not. Surely, one does not need to "be close" to someone to be able to kill them, unless this person never leaves a bullet proof building with no entrances or exits. Also, it is therefore not necessary that Fred must become friends with Bob, For to be a mercenary means that he simply kills for money. He is not required to get close to such a man to be able to kill him. You also state that if one did not occur, it would be impossible for Bob to not kill Fred. This is again, clearly nonsense to say that one must be friends with someone, offend someone, and "get close" to someone to be able to kill this "someone". So far I have shown that these events are not necessarily casually determining a later situation, even if I couldn't somehow show your premises to be faulty, which I clearly have. None of your premises in any direct way relate to the killing of Fred, because you later say that he still has two choices. These "choices", under the law of nature, are not actual choices. Bob cannot even rationally think about this choice, because in the end it was already determined that he would either kill Fred or not kill Fred. Whichever Bob chooses is already determined, insofar that Bob is not morally responsible. You provide a weak deterministic case that, indeed in your case, Bob is morally responsible. He is morally responsible because none of the premises make him kill Fred or not kill Fred. Just because Fred is a businessman, is friends with Bob, is close to Bob, Bob is a mercenary, and George asks Bob to kill Fred, none of these actually determine anything, for he still has the choice. By the laws of determinism, which is what I am arguing, this choice would have had to be made years before Bob, Fred, George, whoever, were even born. Thus, if determinism were true, and Bob really had no choices (since his choice was already determined long ago), then he cannot be held morally responsible. Your fault lies in the assumption that he still has a choice. If determinism is true, he may think he has a choice, but in reality, this "choice" has already been "chosen" way before his time, or at least the time at which the murder takes place. "Back to the point of decision. Bob has the two choices. He can make the choice (this is free will) to kill Fred or he can make the choice to not kill Fred. If Bob chooses to kill Fred, he is morally responsible for the death of his best friend." Yes, here you are correct. If Bob indeed has two undetermined choices (to kill or not to kill), then if he decides to kill he is morally responsible for the death of Fred. If he doesn't kill Fred, then he obviously is not morally responsible. This would be untrue, however, if your premises that you believe causally determine the outcome, actually did just that-casually determine the choice of whether he would kill or not to kill. However, as previously discussed, your premises in no way necessitates or predicts the outcome of the death of Fred. For if it did, indeed predict or casually determine the death of Fred, then as again previously discussed he would be morally responsible. For determinism to be true, even using your definition "Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event, is determined by a chain of prior occurrences", it is obvious that being friends with someone, asking someone to kill someone, and being close to someone, in no way at all determines the fact that this person will actually kill the other person. For your definition of determinism to be correct, you must state that these choices were already determined, which we can call the set D that you believe causes the killing of Fred. For determinism to be true, there must be some other set of events, C, that cause D to occur. C must then be causally determined by set B, and so on until none of the characters mentioned were even born. It is clear, then, that the outcome can in no way, hold someone responsible for any event of occurring. Since we cannot prevent any of the events that took place prior to our existence.