The existence of things you had no choice about is not incompatible with there also being free will. Some people argue for a limited version of free will, where we get to choose some things, sometimes.

I'm arguing that we've never had a choice, ever, because god created everything that will ever be and he couldn't have got any of it wrong. Even if we had the option to choose, how could we ever make a better choice than the one god made ion those first moments of creation when everything was decided?

Of course, if he isn't omnipotent and omniscient, then free will could easily exist.

Thanks for posting that but could you tell me where in the debate he says it? I don't want to watch a two hour debate to find it, I find Harris kinda hard to stomach. I used to think Dawkins was smug till I discovered Harris.

It seems to me, without having heard what Harris has to say yet, that 'random' couldn't exist in a universe created by an omnipotent and omniscient god. If it's possible to know something, god must know it.

You're perfectly willing to discuss a concept you claim disproves free will if true, but when you get a question if something disproves free will you suddenly can't answer it because "free will is meaningless to you" (paraphrased).

That simply doesn't add up.

I feel like I've been transported to 2013

Whether or not free will exists, what would being able to remember things have to do with it?

I know What can I say, as I've thought about this over the years, I've swung more strongly towards thinking that free will and omniscience/omnipotence are incompatible.

Funnily enough, I had some JV's come to the door this morning so I put this argument to them. The reply was that since he is all-powerful, god can choose not to know something, thereby allowing for us to make choices he wasn't aware that we would make. But, that would mean that god doesn't know something that it's possible for him to know, so he would no longer have the characteristic of omniscience. And since, he now isn't omniscient, there is something that he doesn't have the power to make himself, that is omniscient, meaning that he can't be all-powerful in the first place.....

What do you think of their counter?

Am I capable of picking up this cup of tea to drink it or not? What is this capability if not free will? How could I prove that I (a person with free will) can pick it up?

The issue is that you suddenly decided that you were unable to comment on free will as the concept was meaningless to you.

Yet you have written this OP (and many other posts) on the issue of free will and why it can't work if so and so. How were you able to write these posts if the concept was meaningless to you?

It simply doesn't add up. It's completely obvious that the subject is "suddenly meaningless" whenever you feel uncomfortable with the merits of your own arguments. That's simple and plain intellectual dishonesty.

I'm arguing that you can't have free will AND an omniscient/omnipotent god, and those are the conditions under which Christians claim the existence of free will, so that's something I don't think can exist and you can't ask me if something disproves something I don't think exists, that's nonsensical.

If you flip the question and ask 'does memory prove free will?' then I can answer it and I would say I don't see how it could because there's no apparent connection between them, which is why I keep asking you (with no result so far) to explain what the connection is...

Even if you grant me my conditions, that god is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, so now we have a free will that can exist (for me), and you ask does memory disprove that, I'm still at a loss to explain what memory has to do with free will? I can't answer either yes or no, it has no meaning for me.

Now, can you please just move on to whatever point you want to make?

Arguing for free will ought to be easy.

The problem now is that you are actively lying. You explicitly stated that you couldn't answer the question because you didn't believe in free will so it was meaningless to you.

It's nice that you want people to make their points, but you must understand that it is completely uninteresting to do so when you're just going to not just shift the goalposts, but claim they dont' exist for you, but must be respected as hard barriers for everyone else. That is not debate, it's just you trying to make it so only your words can stick.

Alright. Despite that you still haven't explained what memory has to do with free will, something that might help me answer your question which currently is utterly meaninglessness to me, I'll answer it. My answer is NO, it doesn't disprove free will. Now you can make your point. Also, my answer is YES, it does disprove free will, now you can make your point.

I have to do that, because I don't understand the question, never have, still don't, can't get any info from you to help me understand it and give a meaningful answer.

Please, just make your point..... And stop calling me a liar, it's totally unfair and uncalled for.

How's that? Argue for it maybe, see what happens? I don't care whether you personally believe in it or not, it's irrelevant.

I'm sorry, but since free will is meaningless to you as you don't believe in it, your references to it in this post are obviously meaningless, and thus I can't possibly know what you mean. I mean, we could be talking about hamsters for all I know.

Glad we had this fruitful conversation.

What do you mean when the word "you" is used in the sentence? Because what is that?

Your question is what is meaningless to me. And I've said a number of times that there are conditions under which free will could exist, i.e. if god is neither omnipotent or omniscient. You clearly don't understand my argument.

There's some fundamental misunderstanding going on here and I'm trying to get to the bottom of it. You have taken an entirely different route and that's a shame. We achieve nothing that way.

Eh? I'm simply saying that I'll argue free will with you and I don't care if you actually agree with me, I want you to argue for it, because you said it should be easy...

Is that the answer to the question? (it was a serious question...what is this "you" first define that before claiming that "you" doesn't have free will)

"Since France has no cities, it has no capital"
"But France has cities? So surely it can have a capital?"
"I'm sorry, I don't believe in capitals so your claim is meaningless to me"

This is not really arguing. It's you refusing to argue.

Eh? Why are you replying to a reply I made to someone else about something else?

Did you miss my reply to you?

Ok, let's zero this. Start again. You said "Arguing for free will ought to be easy." Ok, would you like to make your argument for free will to me?

Of course. And its already started. A question has been asked. We await determinism to see if it can be answered.

That's your defence of free will?

Who is this "you"? (this is the question....this is like level 1 into the question of free will and nothing is moving so far.)

Dunno, you tell me. Move it forward for us. Since free will is allegedly god given, and I don't see how that's possible if god is omniscient and omnipotent, then I really don't see how the subject of 'you' is pertinent. So can you explain it for me please?