Choose one of them Kleptin!

There was a considerable amount of misunderstanding in the last post and as soon as he clarified some things, I managed to find out where things go awry. My response will take on the following format: 1. Clarification of my argument 2. The problem with my opponent's response 3. Why my opponent's argument is still logically flawed 4. Response to my opponent's counter-argument on agency vs free will CLARIFICATION OF MY ARGUMENT The statement in question was my opponent's statement "We have no control over the events of the past". My argument was that there were two ways this can be read: 1. We cannot time-travel and change the past 2. In the past, we did not have power over our environments and actions In the first situation, I argue that the argument is a non sequitor because the fact that we cannot time travel and change the past does not mean that we do not have the ability to make free choices in changing things in our present and the future. In the second situation, I argue that the argument begs the question because it assumes that we did not have free will in the past and that this concludes that we have no free will in the present or the future. My opponent insists that he meant "We have no ability to change what happened a minute ago or 5 minutes ago, or a year ago", and that his new syllogism shows that the argument is logically valid. PROBLEMS WITH MY OPPONENT'S RESPONSE After very careful scrutiny, I have discovered that my opponent's response last round was a curious form of the Equivocation fallacy. . http://en.wikipedia.org... An equivocation fallacy is when a proof hinges on something, either a word, phrase, or in this case, an entire premise, that can be interpreted several ways. In the following two proofs, the words "light" and "code" can be interpreted in several ways. In argument 1, it is direct definition. In argument 2, it is a more vague equivocation. 1. A feather is light What is light cannot be dark A feather cannot be dark 2. DNA is a code All codes are the result of intelligence DNA must be the result of intelligence The equivocation in my opponent's response is as follows. See his new syllogism: 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. WHY MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT IS STILL FLAWED The equivocation fallacy actually has the effect of involving BOTH possible interpretations that I pointed out. It's just that my opponent decides to pick and choose the interpretations into leading to a conclusion. To illustrate this, I will show that my opponent's argument still begs the question as per the second interpretation even though he denied that. 1. Events of the past determine our present state: What if the events include acts of free will and free decision? Yes, our present state would be the result of the consequences of the past, but there is nothing about this statement that precludes free will. 2. Our present choices and actions are the necessary consequences of the past Yes, this is true. But our present choices and actions need not be determined purely by the past. If free will existed, then this statement could still be true as we would have the ability to react freely to the events of the past. Especially if we note that the events of the past were formed by the free decisions of ourselves and of others. 3. We have no control over the events of the past. My opponent insists that by this, he means that we cannot go back in time to change the past. However, we need not do this in order to exercise free will. If we do not assume that free will ceases to exist, then none of the previous points follow through to a logical conclusion. 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. The events of the past could be the result of free will, and our responses could also be the result of free will. Thus, this begs the question. It assumes that there was no free will in the past and thus, there is no free will in the future. To further clarify: My opponent assumes a determined past, in order to prove a determined present. In every part of his argument, he weeds out the possibility of free will interfering with events, past or present, in order to come to a conclusion that free will cannot exist. This is evident by the fact that if I reintroduce the possibility of free will, my opponent's argument falls apart. Yes, events of the past determine our present state, but what if those events were the result of free decisions made in the past? Events of the past used to be events of the present to someone. They were making free choices. Choices are limited by the decisions of others, but not limited to one outcome alone. My opponent has not proven this. RESPONSE TO MY OPPONENT'S COUNTERARGUMENT ON AGENCY VS FREE WILL My opponent's counterargument was a pretty solid one, and I admit that I did not know the difference between agency and free will. However, it must be pointed out that even though my opponent mentioned the difference between them, he still failed to prove that my example was a demonstration of agency and not of free will. My argument is that as I performed those actions, I indeed felt that they were free. In fact, there was no a single part of me that could conceive of why those actions might have been determined. As far as my senses could go, those actions were the result of free choices, and I acted on them. My opponent's rebuttal is the same type of argument as the Matrix films portray: All we know is existence. What if, in fact, we were just hooked up to a machine? At the end, my opponent does nothing but ask "what if? " With all my senses and all my knowledge, I claim that I exist. No part of me shows that existence is an illusion. Similarly, with all my senses and all my knowledge, I claim that I act freely. No part of me shows that free will is an illusion. If I experience free will with my senses, and my opponent has no hard proof to show that free will is an illusion and only offers the fact that it MAY be agency, how is this a suitable counterargument? Occam's razor states that all other things being equal, the simpler explanation is the best. There are no outstanding proofs against free will, and senses all point to free will. However, there is always the POSSIBILITY of free will being an illusion. Since all things are equal between these two possibilities, I opt for the simpler one: That my senses are correct, not that I have to question everything that I observe and feel. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you to the audience and to my opponent.