Determinism is compatible with free will

Thank you for the delightful response. Thank you, furthermore, for the complaints. I will provide more clarity to my case after a few things. 1) "First, you state information regarding determinism only to in the last sentence state that free will is needed because it has a beginning. You need more content to back this up," What is your point? Also, I do not see how more information will help. I am debating assuming you, the instigator, knows what determinism and free will are. I do not see how that is wrong. 2) It is not illogical to follow a chain of statements that flow in a logical order. If it was hard to understand, then you would not have understood. If you had not understood, you would have returned a chain summarizing what my case seemed to say. Seeing as you understood perfectly, it is not hard to understand. 3) When you understand my case, you can refute my case. 4) How is it invalid? My case shows why determinism needs free will to work. This means they are compatible, they are capable of existing or performing in harmonious, agreeable, or congenial combination with another or others (American Heritage Dictionary at dictionary.com). ---------------------------------------- Now to clarify. My case is just as my opponent said, "determinism has no begining, and therefore, since there is a begining, free will must be the beginning." Part 1 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. Part 2 Time is a creation of man. It does not actually exist. There has to be a beginning. Part 3 There is a beginning which cannot be provided by determinism. The opposite, free will, can provide a beginning. Free will starts it for determinism. They exist in harmonious combination with each other. Check back with the definition mentioned a bit above. ---------------------------------------- Now to my opponent's case. First and foremost, this Robert Kane person is quite enlightening. I do not agree. We would be morally responsible for our actions. Consider this situation: There are three people Bob, Fred, and George. Bob and Fred are best friends. Bob is a mercenary for hire. Fred is a big businessman. George is a mafia boss. George asks Bob to kill Fred, who has offended the mafia somehow. Bob now has a few options. a) kill Fred b) not kill Fred We will get back to this point. Now the events that lead to this point: 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. 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. Also note that in this situation, free will and determinism coexist harmoniously. Thus, they, determinism and free will, are compatible. ---------------------------------------- N.B. The names used in the story hold no relevance to anything. I am enthusiastic to hear my wise opponent's well-thought out response.