That's an awfully deterministic answer. The kind of answer that always tends to come up with these free will questions which is proof enough to doubt it.
If you have a proof, please demonstrate it. Otherwise the question of the definition, much less existence, of free will is just one opinion against another and it's better to nip a tedious and fruitless philosophical conversation in the bud.
I said proof enough because sure enough the comment chains wind up like this, including your reply. Some people, as if on cue, deterministically say yes, some no, and a few like yours saying that it's all a waste of time. Which you're proving again that this sure is yet we're deterministic slaves to it. Cue 'no we're not because...', as if it's proving otherwise.
>Which you're proving again that this sure is yet we're deterministic slaves to it. Cue 'no we're not because...', as if it's proving otherwise.
Nothing at all is actually being proven either way. That's kind of the point.
Okay, let us see your homework.
what homework?
Precisely.
Precisely what? I don't see you citing any sources.
No, but you're the one who made the initial claim. Under normal debate rules, you have the burden of proof.
Yeah, I don't even have an opinion on this debate, other than it is a complex subject where people tend to have strong opinions with little to back them up.
This isn't a formal debate, this is a discussion forum. There is no burden of proof here.
Even so, it feels a bit unfair for you to make the initial claim, the other guy disagrees, and then you demand proof from him, when you have supplied none and you went first. Not a formal debate, still not quite cricket, as the Brits would say.