sure if there is no free will in the universe then we are still the big bang unfolding moment to moment. Therefore no separation can be made between events and things as its all one big event and one thing. it all comes as one piece.

So you're simply not including god being a factor in the conversation? Without god in the equation, I don't see how it can be anything other than free will. What else but god, or some other kind of universal 'power' could be a reason for believing in 'fate' or having a deterministic outlook?

you can call the big bang god if that helps.

It doesn't really, the big ban has an entirely natural explanation, god is something supernatural with a great many assumed characteristics some of which have definite relevance to a conversation about free will, such as omniscience and omnipotence. We would have to agree what those characteristics are.

God is all that there is...in the same way the big bang and the events unfolded are all that there is. The two are the same definition since God or the big bang can't have free will either.

Why would anyone need to defend their free will? Are you trying to steal it?

Ok, so there's a god, and presumably he has the previously mentioned characteristics? If so, then he made us, so the 'you' you mention is god's work. So doesn't it come back to god one way or the other? If so, we're back to my OP.

Sure, that's one way of looking at it. But if god exists, then it's what he always planned for me to do

No argument about an experience can supersede an experience. I can argue you don't have breathing lungs but your experience of having breathing lungs remains the actual happening, not any argument about it.

Arguing or discussing what distorts people's perceptions of experiences so that they presuppose free will isn't an available experience is not easy, but it's relevant part of what appears to happen.

No in that case you would be God.

Yeah, I know a guy who actually thinks that. I don't agree, I think you can be created by something without being that something. So, where does the 'you' bit come into this?

You did say in the other thread that you don't think god is omniscient or omnipotent, in which case I have no problem with the idea of free will.

I've no idea what you are talking about.

What does that mean? If two people experience the same thing, but have different perceptions of it, which of them is right about what actually happened?

This proof is circular, and assumes its conclusion in its premise

Determinism without God: the universe is causal, the Big Bang is the first cause, everything after the Big Bang is simply a large long causal chain.
Otherwise, from whence does a thought or action independent of previous thought or action arise?

Party A has free will and reports the experience of having free will.

Party B argues free will is an illusion because X.

Party A has the free will to argue or not.

Party B's move?

It isn't any of that. It's actually two questions. I'm hoping someone can clear it up for me.

Do whatever god predetermined him to do...

Even while X equals "God determines everything", Party A need not move from their last position, which is having the free will to argue or not. No matter what X equals, party A still has the experiences of free will and there is no reason to assume arguing anything will make those experiences not have happened.

They only think that they have free will, which is actually just an illusions, and will always end up doing exactly what god designed them to do when he created everything. Everything that happens is god's will.

Party A can use their free will to keep listening while deciding to argue or no argue.

And, since party A has free will, they have zero need for party B to tell them whatever it is particularly because they have it to determine for themselves.

It ain't rocket science. If God is the big creator of everything with unlimited power and potential, then free will exists if he lets it exist.

That a finite being finds that paradoxical is no more interesting than an ant being unable to do calculus.

Tacking on ad hoc hypotheses ala "God can't not be perfect, this would not be perfect" is just cheating. You don't know that this is true and you don't even know what such a God would find perfect, so don't purport to know either.

And such thought experiments are just distractions anyway. The issue isn't what hypothetical gods with hypothetical powers would do, it's that there is really no good reason to assume nor conclude that they exist. They're just Russel's teapots.

If you want to start a thread about how it's pointless discussing the qualities of something that doesn't even exist, feel free, but this one is about assigning some qualities to a being we'll assume for the sake of discussion does exist, and then exploring the subject as a thought experiment that does have a point, it addresses something a great many people believe to be true and which they use to explain away great suffering and evil. Something I'd rather they didn't do.

What about you?

If there is free will, then god is not omniscient or omnipotent and cannot 'determine everything'.

I don't think believing an omnipotent and omniscient god created free will does any harm to anything or anyone. In practice it's pretty much no different from believing mechanisms in the universe made free will possible.

Nor do I think people use that to "explain away great suffering and evil". For that to happen you need to believe a lot more.

And lastly I don't think dubious thought experiments supported by unnecessary assumptions is going to resolve any deeper problem with specific religious beliefs. If I want to make a point that some revealed religion like Christianity is likely bogus, I'll simply point out that (non-human) animals don't talk, so the bible seems less than trustworthy.