Do you believe in free will?

[NoMoreFaith]

I can. Theists have no evidence to support their sky buddy.

I have evidence that I have free will. I'm using free will to decide to converse with you right now.

Do you have evidence for the black dots that keep appearing? Or are they an illusion brought on by the physical process the mind uses to create images?

You have free will because you experience it, is the same as claiming the black dots are real because you experience it.

They are both illusions created by the physical processes of your brain, and how stimuli causes chains of reaction which is beyond our ability to comprehend.

The true question of free will, is what constitutes the reality. Is it purely what we perceive, or is there a higher measure for reality than our limited perceptions.

You claim theists have no evidence for God, yet how often do you hear of their private inner conviction. What you have presented is that you have a private inner conviction that you could have chosen differently. What evidence do you have of that? Its an unfalsifiable self-authenticating private belief, and no different to that of a belief that a sky daddy made the universe and tells you right from wrong.

You believe in free will, completely, just like a theist does with God, but you have no evidence of its existence, beyond the illusion of it. You are deluded I'm afraid.

---

Is it my position in free-will that is contradictory or is it yours?

Definitely yours.

Certainty and inevitability do not indicate any necessary conflict between the action and motivation. The action maybe certain and inevitable - however, if the agent's motivation behind the action and the action itself are consistent with each-other, then the action is uncoerced.

You argument works only from finite regress. You stop the buck at motivation offering no further causation.
Where did the motivation come from? Did it come from somewhere other than the neuron activity of the brain? I know you don't think that. So why do you stop the regression at motivation.

You idea of free-will entails that it should be free of causation at the same time being part of the causal chain that leads to the action. That position is necessarily self-contradictory, which is why that idea of free-will can never be true.

Agreed. Your argument is purely from the illusion created by the causal forces, and call the illusion, free will.

The causes of determination are empirically traceable, but regarding free-will, they need only be traced to the agent, because it is that capacity of the agent that is in question. Any further investigation about the cause of the agency would be irrelevant to the issue of its capacity - once such a capacity is established.

So physiological imbalances which cause psychotic episodes should not be considered, because it is the capacity of the agent that is in question? This is part of the capacity of the agent then yes? What else should we consider? Their blood sugar levels? Seratonin levels? Where do you draw the line. Where does free will start, and determinism end?

There is no alternative outcome, but the choice is not coerced if the efficient cause of the choice is the agent and there is no conflict between his motivation and action. So, it really doesn't contradict the definition of free-will that you gave.

I refer back to the finite regress of motivation. What "motivates" the motivation and so on and so forth. Where is the line you draw.

When did we conclude any such thing?

When we noted that the definition of "illusion of free will" is equivalent to your "free will". It precludes any further discussion on the matter apart from how you define free will itself.