Free will Argument against Divine Providence

[genkaus]

That's what compatabilism is! Compatabilism is when free will is compatible with determinism and therefore whether we are determined or not is irrelevant to the fact we have free-will (if we define it that way).

Except, my definition of free-will does not say anything about determinism. It does not indicate if my definition of free-will is compatible with determinism. It does not indicate if it is incompatible.

Also, do you understand the libertarian definition of free will or not?

Yes. Do you? And do you understand how your definition is different from the libertarian definition?

The whole point of "could have done otherwise" is that if you are ultimately entirely determined then you could not have done otherwise[1].... so I am talking about libertarian free will....... which is impossible.... because we could not have done otherwise.... (unless it's through indeterminism ( so it's down to chance) and therefore not our own determination[2] (so it is once again down to chance (which is not free will)).

Here's where you commit the fallacy of equivocation. The definition of free will used at [1] is different from the one used at [2].

[1] - Libertarian definition - Free will exists if your will is ultimately undetermined.

[2] - Your definition - Free will exists if your will is ultimately self-determined.

Do you see the difference yet? If you were using the Libertarian definition throughout the argument instead of switching it halfway through, then your statement would've read:

"The whole point of "could have done otherwise" is that if you are ultimately entirely determined then you could not have done otherwise.... so I am talking about libertarian free will....... which is impossible.... because we could not have done otherwise.... (unless it's through indeterminism ( so it's down to chance) and therefore not our own determination (so it is once again down to chance (which is free will according to the libertarian definition))."