Do you believe in free will?

[Perhaps]

You missed my first premise.

1. The mind (which gives 'me' the ability to have identity) exists in the true material world
2. The mind creates reality
3. I (the mind) exist in the reality which I create
4. Thus, because I have created it, I have free will in my reality

Your first premise here is in conflict with your second. And your second is in conflict with your third. And your first is in conflict with your third.

The material world is real. It is a part of reality. Your mind cannot create something in which it already exists.

If your mind exists in the reality which it creates, then it cannot exist before it creates it.

Your mind cannot have dual existences, one in material reality and one in whatever it creates.

Get a grip, man. You are losing it.

We're going to go in circles forever because I hold the position that the mind creates reality, while you hold the position that reality is independent of the mind. As far as the conflicts between premises go, premise 1 should be easily accepted by yourself, premise 2 is where you have a problem because of your position as it relates to mine, but that doesn't invalidate my argument if the premise is taken to be true. Premise 3 was miss worded, I agree, it should look something more like: My perceived self exists in the reality which I create. My identity is independent of my perceived existence in premise 3.

No, actually, they do not live within the blackness. They live in the material world. Don't take poetic expressions so literally. That "blackness", which is simply the absence of visual perception, is not reality. It is merely their perception of reality. You do realize that reality is defined as something that is independent of perception right?

Oh alright, so their perception of reality is false because they lack the proper mechanism through which to see, but yours is right on the spot because you have all five senses. Once again, what happens if your perception of reality is false as well. The very idea of defining something as independent of the mind is nonsensical in itself, take a step back and think about it. Even if you don't allow me the supposition that the mind creates reality, you can acknowledge that the mind creates the abstractions through which we understand reality and it also provides us with our perceptions which allow us to interact with reality - so what then is independent of our mind if the only way we can interact and understand reality is the mind?

You want me to use something better than logic? What do you want me to use? Faith? Do I need to say that I had a divine revelation that you are wrong? Do you even realize that as soon as you indicate your willingness to accept proof, you have already accepted logic as a valid standard for discussion?

Either you are saying that logic does not work or that my formulation is incorrect. No amount of other-worldly analogies would change that. So, tell me, which is it and why?

I wanted you to realize that your proof relies on the truth of my original statement. I want you to use logic, but I want you to realize that it comes from the mind, and therefore cannot be used to disprove the mind's role in creating reality.