Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

There is no need to demean philosophical discussion Coldfire. We owe much of what we are to philosophy.What we are discussing now, determinism vs. free will, is philosophical. I love philosophy, but there’s a time and place for the “extreme philosophic,” and such extreme epistemological debates can take away from the OP.Yes, free-will is the natural thought.Well I don’t know who you’re agreeing with, I didn’t say that. And what does it mean? That the concept of free will is inherent in humans?If we don't have it, then many of us are decided in some way to think that we do.No, ALL of us are decided in MANY ways to think and act the way we do. Not by any deity, and in some cases not even by other humans, but what we decide IS determined for us by many factors.Rationally it is a better concept to exist than otherwise The will to exist is not incumbent upon rationality. Our drive to exist is inherent as with all life forms. It is a primal urge devoid of logic or reason.Rationally it is a better concept to exist than otherwise, as it allows more for society to exist in its current form than otherwise.This statement is flawed. Circular reasoning as well as other fallacies I’m sure. Please consider revision.If there were no free will, then the thought of us punishing people for breaking the rules of society becomes an unbearable burden. Why should we punish anyone for doing something if they don't have control?Indeed, why should we? Or going even further, why should we punish someone for something they did where WE, as a society, as a species, were potentially the cause of them doing it in the first place?Besides, the guilt a people will feel for such a thing is irrelevant to the truth of whether or not free will exists. Neither depends on one another. You say people would be more responsible if they realized how much their decisions affect others, but how could a person be more responsible unless they had the free will to choose to be so?Because the responsibility is caused by the realization of how much their decisions affect others, and that realization is caused by another factor, and that factor caused by another factor, and so on.Consequences to actions caused by an external force do exist, but not in the sense of individual responsibility.I don’t understand, please give me an example.Your example of having a gun to the head actually argues in favor of free will. If it weren't for free will, you wouldn't be able to choose to save your life by complying. Besides, not everyone chooses to comply simply because someone shows force. Many people choose to train and arm themselves to be able to defend themselves.See this is where you’re wrong. Free will doesn’t mean ‘the ability to choose.’ It means that the choices being made are independent and random. My position is that all choices are caused by something, which in turn makes those choices dependent on the causation. What I am arguing is that the causal factors inevitably lead to a choice being made. If a person was being robbed at point blank range, the choice to comply to the thief is determined by how they value their life as well as many other factors. To posit a free will is to support the idea that we can make choices apart from causation. You said yourself, we can choose. We choose based off of what we value(our lives), but the reasons for making a choice don't change the fact that we are still making a choice.I agree, we choose based off of what we value (as well as other factors)… and not based off of free will I might add. And yes, the reasons do not change the fact that a choice is being made, they just explain WHY that choice was made over other choices. Given the same circumstance, with the same causal factors and you will end with the same result, the same choice.Free will doesn't mean you make some random choice in every situation.Ah, therein lies the rub. So you’re telling me that all I had to do to prove my point was to tell you the definition of free will?“Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_willI never said it is free will vs. fate. It is free will vs. no free will. You can call it fate, or reaction, or reflex, or anything else, but the truth is it has to be will, or no will.You said in an earlier post “If that decision was made(not made, since there would be no will, but decided for us), there would be no consequence for any actions.” What did you mean by “decided for us?” Such a phrase makes me think of the “free will or fate” argument which I do not support. I agree that the debate is about free will vs. no free will, or more accurately free will vs. determinism. But I don’t agree with the last part of your comment: “the truth is it has to be will, or no will.”The argument isn’t on ‘will’ alone, but on whether or not that ‘will’ is free and independent, or determined by cause and effect. You are the one creating a false dichotomy between free-will and informed decisions. People make decisions based off of experience, and we call that trait wisdom. You can exercise free will wisely.Not of free will and informed decisions, but of free will and determinism. And it is only a false dichotomy due to the fact that they are incompatible with each other, meaning that one actually exists, and one doesn’t.