One can rationally support the claim that they are the only individual in existence with free will.

Thanks for an intriguing debate Pro. Good luck. OPENING STATEMENT To start I"d like to formally define some important concepts. Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic [1] Predetermined: established or decided in advance; prearranged; predestined [2] Determinism: the philosophical position that for every event, including human action, there exist conditions that could cause no other event. [3] Free Will: The ability for an agent to act according to his own motivation. [4] Omniscient: knowing everything : having unlimited understanding or knowledge [5] PRO"s resolution is as follows: "One can rationally support the claim that they are the only individual in existence with free will." He presents the following case (I"ve reorganized for clarity): Premise 1 (P1): We have a determinist existence. All actions can be predetermined, given the power of omniscience, because within each action there exists conditions that could cause no other action. P2: If PRO was an omniscient being, PRO could predict all actions of other beings. P3: Since PRO can predict every action of every other being, every other being must not have free will. P4: PRO cannot predict PRO"s own actions. P5: PRO therefore has free will. P6: Because each individual lives in his or her own world, they are logically restrained to accept certain ideas Conclusion: In anyone else"s world, they have free will and as it relates to PRO, only PRO has free will. Therefore, one can only rationally support the claim that they are the only individual in existence with free will. ROUND 1 ARGUMENT PRO"s resolution hinges on the proposition that we are logically restrained from accepting realities that we cannot observe. According to P6, since we cannot observe the free will of other agents we cannot rationally support the claim that they are free to choose their actions. This is the appeal to ignorance fallacy, specifically in regard to proving non-existence out of ignorance. At best, the free will of others is undetermined but we cannot preclude that it exists. However, this logical truth opens PRO"s resolution for further scrutiny. We could accept P1 and P2 as logically sound. However, P3 is problematic because it revolves around a poor definition of free will. PRO"s version of free will is not compatible with determinism. If our actions are already determined by initial conditions, we have but one available action; that which was culminated by all of the conditions that existed throughout not only the experiences during our existence, but the experiences of the entire universe. All conditions converging at that one infinitesimal moment, allowing only one logical action for us. According to PRO, if there is only one action left for us to choose, we don"t contain free will. For free will to exist, PRO maintains that we must have multiple choices. However, this is not logically true. Free will only requires that we are the agent that acts and that no other agent acts on our behalf. In other words, it is not important that we have but one choice but that we make the choice ourselves. The freedom to act affirms our free will, not the freedom to choose. Therefore, determinism does not prevent free will at all. P3 can therefore not logically be adopted; it is rational to support the claim that every individual in existence has free will. Moral responsibility will help us to prove this concept. Consider the following example: It is God"s will that Cain slay Abel. On that fateful day, with Cain"s jealously raging, God decides that if Cain does not choose to kill his brother that he will instead force the thought into Cain"s head, forcing the action Himself. However, in his jealous wrath Cain bludgeons Abel and kills him, preventing God from forcing the action. Cain only had one action to commit, since all other actions would have been prevented by God. However, was he still not morally responsible for his sin? Although no other action was possible, the action to kill was his own and therefore, his responsibility. Furthermore, PRO"s P4 also has logic issues. In the example provided, all-knowing PRO could predict every action of every other being. How then is it logical that PRO could not predict his own actions? PRO claims that this is paradoxical. However, it is only paradoxical if PRO assumes he has his definition of free will (multiple choice free will) to begin with. This line of reasoning commits the circular reasoning fallacy, which is also called the paradoxical thinking fallacy. We cannot logically adopt P3 or subsequently, P4, for this reason. Thanks for reading through my arguments. I am looking forward to further arguments that are presented by my opponent. SOURCES [1] https://www.google.com... [2] https://www.google.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.merriam-webster.com...