IIIIITHE1IIIII on 27 April 2012
| Plaupius said: I understand your argument, and I think it is the case of changed definition. So, please, define free will again as you understand it now. And, just for clarity, I'm not arguing that free will exists or does not exist, as that is totally irrelevant. If you want to prove the free will does not exist, then you have to define it in such a way that you can actually prove it. Your current, outspoken definition does not seem to support proving that. |
That is the sad truth.
It does seem to me though, that I have disproven everyone elses (well, almost) definition of the free will which, again, is the purpose of this thread.
