Choose one of them Kleptin!

==================== Definition of free will ==================== My opponent states that we should refer to the first definition I gave of free will, but I don't seem to see a rationale for doing such. The American Heritage definition seems to be much more precise, pointing out that free will must be the power of making free choices that are UNCONSTRAINED by external circumstances - usually referring to physical forces. If we simply refer to free will as a "way rational agents exercise control over their actions", then it's not known if this "way" is determined or not. We need to make the distinction that the means of exercising control over your actions mustn't be determined - else how is free will possible? So I would argue that we should keep the American Heritage definition. But really, seeing as how our arguments are going, it might seem a little trivial to argue about the definition when we both have a seemingly intuitively equivalent understanding of free will. ==================== Argument AGAINST the existence of free will ==================== My opponent has conveniently broken down my argument into a syllogism, meaning the audience should refer back to it if the situations requires it. Copying it here again would be a waste of space. His only counterargument is to say that my logic is flawed, that there is a non sequitur. I certainly did not mean to say we "had" control over the events of the past, making his second counterargument null (since he admitted that the logical fallacy of begging the question would only apply if my argument was slightly different, which it is not). So let's concentrate on his accusation that "points 3 and 4 [do not] lead to the conclusion in point 5. " At first, it would seem to be true that Kleptin is correct. There is nothing particular in points 3 and 4 that demonstrate that having no control of the events of the past means we can't control the consequences of them. If this was the only points in my syllogism, then Kleptin is correct in calling a non sequitur. However, he has committed a quite embarrassing mistake - failing to closely read the rest of my syllogism. My opponent has said had no response to any of my other points, so it should be assumed that they are correct. So first, take notice of point 1 and 2: events of the past and the laws of nature determine our state. Since my opponent hasn't touched these two points, it's assumed he agrees with me here. Now look at point 6: our present choices and acts are the necessary consequences of the past and the laws of nature. Similarly, my opponent hasn't touched this point, meaning it's assumed he agrees with me. So just tie them together and you'll see what I mean. If my opponent agrees that the events of the past determine our present state, and that our present states are a necessary consequence of the past, then the events of the past determine the consequences of them, meaning point 5 is true! In other words, if you reverse the order of point 5 and 6 (which would make it more clear), then the formula is quite obvious. Let me make another syllogism again that will better explain my argument. I will make "laws of nature" become synonymous with the "events of the past" for the purpose of clarity. 1. Events of the past determine our present state 2. Our present choices and actions are the necessary consequences of the past 3. We have no control over the events of the past. 4. Since we have no control over either the events of the past, we have no control over the consequences of them. :. Therefore, we have no control over our present choices and acts. There are two ways to defeat an argument. You either invalidate one of the premises -- which my opponent has not done -- or you attempt to demonstrate a logical flaw in the argument -- which my opponent has attempted to do. Obviously, the reason why there wasn't a logical flaw was because my opponent has failed to read the rest of my argument. I did not make a non sequitur because my premises clearly flow from one to another. ==================== Argument FOR the existence of free will ==================== My opponent does indeed submit a popular argument for free will, and of course the rebuttal will be quite simple and easy. What my opponent has done is what many people who believe in free will fall prey to as well - confusing agency with free will. In philosophy, namely the philosophy of action, agency[1] "the capacity of an agent to act in a world. " What my opponent has given examples of is exactly this - demonstrations of agency but NOT free will. Agency basically means the capacity we humans have to make choices, irrespective of whether or not they are free. Of course, I am contending we do not have free choices. Free will means that our choices aren't product of casual chains, that's it's somehow exempt from the laws of physics. My opponent states that these actions were a result of his choice - his will. But I ask of him, isn't his will determined as well? Is not the way a person chooses between actions determined as well? Because if his will is determined, then there is no elbow room for free will. Not only are his behaviors/actions determined, but his will that picks between his behaviors/actions is determined as well! The means of choice is determined since it is also a mental event; it is not exempt from the laws of physics. You don't have to be physically coerced by a large man or held at gunpoint to have your free will compromised, it's the laws of physics that already are constraining your actions. ==================== Argument AGAINST the existence of free will ==================== What we have here is two things: -My opponent has failed to indulge the entirety of my syllogism. By reading it all of it and tying the pieces together, it becomes evident that there is no logical flaw in my argument. The only thing he can do is to attack one of my premises. -My opponent's proof is a common misunderstanding those who share his belief with free will have, the confusion between agency and free will. Agency is the capacity to make choices, as his examples show, but this doesn't mean these choices are free. As of now, my opponent has to somehow account for how free will can exist if even the means of choosing among actions is itself determined. Not only are the choices determined, but the act of choosing is as well. Why? Simple, because it's a mental event and thus not exempt from the laws of physics. ---References--- 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)