(June 25, 2021 at 5:20 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:(June 25, 2021 at 5:16 pm)Angrboda Wrote: None of this says anything about free will. You've created an irrelevant argument about nothing. P1 being true doesn't mean daughter D has free will. Nor does P1 and P3 being consistent.
It does. P1 is a sufficient condition for free will. An agent has free will == he's able to choose (at least once in his life) from a set of actions.
P1 means D freely chose her flavor of ice cream today, therefore, by definition, D has free will.
P1 is not a sufficient condition for free will unless you include the proviso that choosing in P1 refers to freely choosing. However if it does, it begs the question and the argument is invalid. So P1 cannot be a sufficient condition for free will without begging the question. Free will implies that both P1 and not-P1 could be true. However P3 rules out the possibility of not-P1, so P3 rules out free will.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)