Here’s a renewed review of my argument sillouette,
Proof that freewill exists:
I define freewill and determinism by the LIMIT argument, and prove
freewill through a process of elimination!!!
The LIMIT is defined thusly, this is a thought experiment:
A person knows every reason why they know what they know.
If ALL of those reasons are external to them, we can define this as
absolute determinism. In this situation, by definition, if all of
those reasons are external, it is impossible to define an internal, it
would make such a being non-sentient (also a disproof of God).
What this proves is that there is no such thing as absolute
determinism in existence.
Now!
If a person knows every reason why they know what they know,
If all of those reasons are internal for them, we can define this as
absolute freewill, the LIMIT (remember, this is a thought experiment) In this situation, by definition, this means that
such a being cannot possible abstract other with which to distinguish
self from. (also a disproof of God). Such a being, would be defined
also, as absolute chaos, which, not to be confused with the concept of
complexity, is by definition, undefined. If you can define chaos, it
is no longer chaos, but rather… complexity.
What we know from this is that there is neither absolute freewill, nor
absolute determinism.
In terms of proving freewill through a process of elimination, we can
define freewill by the remainder of a lack of 100% possible
determinism.
However, this necessary space which is a lack of determinism (it has
to be something else besides determinism), can besides freewill, be
filled with chaos.
But as we remember from before: chaos is undefined, or rather, to the
extent that we define chaos as undefined, chaos does not allow, by
this definition, the capacity to define identity, and it is self
evident, that we have identity.
So, we can determine from self evident identity, that chaos cannot
fill the gap of a necessary lack of determinism, we know that this
space is less than absolute determinism, but greater than chaos. This
persistence of identity, this object permanence of self, through a
process of elimination, only leaves us with freewill as the remainder.
This argues compatibalism. Freewill and determinism co-existing, this
is distinct from the compatibalism of determinism and chaos.
The proof for freewill to any measure whatsoever, disproves God.
There are actually two proof in here: God cannot exist, and freewill
must exist as a leftover from the proof that absolute determinism
cannot exist.
These and defined eliminatively from LIMIT proofs.
I can easily demonstrate that morality is objective and can only exist
if god doesn’t exist, and I’m prepared to debate this with proofs
through contradiction.
So heres the other counter argument people use against my proof.
The closer you look at self, self doesn’t really exist.
To this I reply:
Self, like everything, in nature, exists in what I call a “sweet spot
of perceptual acuity”
What I mean by this, is that if you take a microscope to a tree, it
will no longer look anything like a tree. If you are 40 miles away,
you won’t even see a tree. Neither of these perceptual acuity aspects
deny the trees existence.
It’s the same for identity, yes, the closer you look at it, it ceases
to exist, this is also true the further away you look at identity.
This NEVER negates that identity exists though. Just like it never
negates that the tree exists.
Examining identity closer to determine that it doesn’t exist, is not
the MOST REAL interpretation, it is just one of three, equal
interpretations, one is not deeper or more profound than the other,
and one does not negate the other two.
There’s an even simpler disproof of god than this:
If you simply look into yourself and state, “this is currently violating my consent” then god doesn’t exist.