Do you believe in free will?

[NoMoreFaith]

Playing the devil's advocate once again - if your position is that "if you understand all the factors, you CAN determine the next instant", you have already accepted a deterministic position. Any argument for a logically sound and yet causation-free free-will cannot follow from this premise.

Therefore. The ultimate therefore here...
You must show causation can be superseded to show free will.

Otherwise, we are simply saying the argument doesn't disprove magic because it starts with the assumption there is no magic.
I hold my hand up here, I assume no magic. But the onus of proof is always on "Magic".

You're getting a free ride that nobody has called you up on displaying a logical argument FOR free will, instead of trying to pick holes in (hard) determinism. Its not the same thing.

That is exactly what I said. In order to conclude that "the future is determined", you have already discarded free-will as a part of natural law and superceded it with determinism. To begin a discussion of free-will vs determinism with this position is asking your opponent to first accept all your premises and then show how his arguments follow from those.

You cannot supercede free will as part of natural law unless you prove it is part of natural law.
Why don't you say that we discard magic as part of natural law and supersede it with science.

Why don't you argue some scientific reasoning for free will, or is it just in the air word play with no reference to the real world?

(Just as a side note; It may appear aggressive as a comment, but I don't wish you to take it aggressively.)

Yes, free-will - as you have understood it is not real, since you have already assumed it to mean freedom from causation. To clarify once more - it has never been my position that free-will must be free from causation or find its source in something supernatural.

Your arguments make it appear so. So far, your views seem to be compatabilist, whilst mine have been strictly hard determinism.

Can you define, in one paragraph what "Free Will" means to you before we proceed any further.

In order for
That is - in fact - all that it is. And I never said that you said that there was anything separate. I say that you assume - "In order for free-will to exist, there must be something separate".

Then you need to start putting up some arguments how it can be compatible then.

That's because I accept them. I'm saying that posing a question about a supernatural interpretation of free-will, while ruling out the supernatural altogether is intellectually dishonest.

I have repeatedly said I do not rule it out, simply require evidence of its existence. Otherwise its unnecessary "woo".
Thats not a dismissal, but I do demand an argument for. All you've done is picked holes, and added statements which were contrary to the position presented.
Much like this one.

Between a dichotomized discussion of free-will vs determinism, it would be loading the discussion in either way to presume such an agent does or does not exist. That is my argument. Since you assumed one way in your stated presumptions, you loaded the argument in your favor.

Since, as it happens, I accept those presumptions as well, while not accepting your interpretation of free-will - I went ahead and answered your question, while pointing out your mistake.

It would be if you were referring to an argument instead of a statement OF my presumptions.

I do so, in order to reference the argument itself. I do so, so that flaws in the argument can be traced back to the assumptions made, so that if they themselves are inconsistent or in error, this can be shown.
Its called constructing a logical argument, not "loading" the question.

If the presumption of the article of arguments can be show to be true, and that a logical connection between those presumptions and the argument exists, this is proof of the argument.

Logical discussion relies on pointing out the fallacies inherent in the presentation of the argument.
What you're doing is saying the argument is loaded because I provided observable truths.