The majority of the arguments for the existence of god can easily be countered in a falsifiable manner. I don't see any of that scientific rigor behind your position.

I also don't agree with the assertion that free will can only exist if it's absolute. I also vehemently disagree with the assertion that free will can only exist if decision-making is entirely random because that would be a form of determinism in itself. I've explained this to you several times, so if you don't get it you're clearly just not there yet.

The fact that you have to rely so heavily on false analogies, false equivalencies, strawmanning, and goalpost moving to support your position should tell you that your position isn't as concrete as you're presenting it to be.

No, it's a paradox. The whole concept is riddled with paradoxes from both sides.

There's a huge difference between 'I believe' and 'I know' which is what is being argued against. OH said that he knows free will doesn't exist because it's proven. We can argue over the merit over it just don't act like merit over it.

We've both made this point several times. Never seemed to be acknowledged.

Edit: You can argue that choice is predicated on the influence of consequence. Where a rock being thrown is only reacting to the past, a conscious being making a choice is reacting to what it predicts to be the future.

Im still waiting for batlord to tell me the default position for the claim “free will doesnt exist”. He seems to thhink taking the opposite side of the claim is the default so i guess free will does exist.

Seriously though, they should stop saying "I chose to" and start saying "I was destined to".

Took you long enough

It took the universe long enough to bring him to that point, you mean?

the gangs almost all here. Where is grindy?

I don't know, he isn't destined to be here though.