If free will was not real

[bennyboy]

You asked me how I know that the universe is deterministic, I answered by telling you to read some physics, what are you on about?

What you are saying isn't supported by modern physics.

And what I'm saying is even your definition of free will doesn't exist because you are encountering obstruction and compulsion from the outside world because everything is deterministic. In a deterministic world a single butterfly's wing flapping can change your entire thought process in the future. It's not free. So I am fucking arguing against your free will, and I'm not saying it can't be free. Haven't you noticed how severely you have reduced your definition of free will in order to argue it into existence?

No. I've literally defined will, and free will, the exact same throughout this entire thread. I said what they mean to me, and proceeded to argue for them. What I HAVE noticed is that you keep quoting me and then ignoring them over and over and over again.

Also, I asked you why are you free unless a foreign agent is holding a gun to your head? Why a foreign agent? Is there something special about the foreign agent that makes him able to strip away the free from your will? Is the foreign agent also more than particles determined to do whatever they're going to do?

I am a particular collection of "particles," and the foreign agent is a separate, and different collection of particles. If that foreign collection of particles interferes with my ability to form and act on intent, then it is an impediment to my free will. If that foreign collection of particles merely presents me with information, and I can form intent freely based on that information and act on it, it is NOT an impediment to my free will.

You keep talking about determinism, despite (1) being wrong that science necessarily supports it, and (2) it being 100% irrelevant to my definition of free will.

Sam Harris isn't a buddhist nor spiritual, he simply meditates and he has studied buddhism if that makes you think he's a buddhist. And if I'm wrong then my apologies, but that doesn't matter. He doesn't believe in God or any woo bullshit. 

He's Buddhist. He found the one religion he can practice which doesn't require a belief in God. Arguing he doesn't believe in any woo bullshit is fine, so long as you believe Buddhism isn't "woo bullshit."

What I've been saying the past thousands years now is that the agent expressing intent is compelled and obstructed in any context because every single thing is determined, he isn't free if it's already determined.

Influence is not compulsion or obstruction. Unless you are a robot or a creature from Mars, I assume you have experience with influence, compulsion and obstruction in your own life, and can tell the difference among them.