Trigger words: supernatural (3)
Indicator sentences: It really depends on how you define *supernatural*.
Negotiation parts: If supernatural just means that things exist that cannot (yet or ever) be explained by science, then I doubt that you'd find anyone to seriously disagree with you. Science is a systematic discipline of problem solving. That doesn't mean that every problem is perfectly solved or even *can be* perfectly solved. If that is your definition, I wouldn't try to change your view. However if your definition for supernatural is a little more along with mainstream, I have to disagree. The mainstream idea is basically that at any point rules can be defied or broken without reason and there can be no attempt to understand them. This (in my view) is gibberish.
Trigger words: free will
Indicator sentences: I disagree with the statement "if everything is determined there is no free will." I define free will as "ability to act according to your desires."
Negotiation parts: This is possible in deterministic universe, thus no magic is needed for free will to exist. What are your desires if not a neurological phenomenon mixed in with environmental influences? Sure they are. What's the problem? If the above is true then your definition of free will falls under the free will of folk psychology. We go around day by day making decisions but those decisions are nevertheless a byproduct of complex casual mechanisms? are they not? No. It's a perfectly good definition. (Btw, where is yours?) And yes, people going around acting according to their complex desires(which are a result of a complex chain of events) are exercising free will. Again, what's the problem? Why does the chain of events matter? What matters if you acted in accordance to your desires, not where those desires came from. Then you define free will as acting according to the desires which cannot be chosen ahead of time by the subject. In what sense is their will (i.e. desires) free if they don't write them? Your definition of free will likely exists but I think it's a misleading misnomer at best. It's not a misnomer at all. Let's go on the streets and ask people: "do you think being able to do what you want is free will?" Many will say "yes." I think you are the one convoluting the definition by trying to require some kind of total control of your desires that are independent from your nature or from outside circumstances. I simply don't understand why is the ultimate source of your desires relevant here? Because if satisfying your desires qualifies as free will and yet we have no control over our desires or how strong they are or if they conflict with one another then in what sense is that will "free"? It seems to be, by the definition you proposed an oxymoron. So what, if I got thirsty because it was hot outside - means I have no free will? Weird. I would say if can drink when thirsty - I have free will. What caused the thirst is a irrelevant red herring. It would mean my decision to drink water was under duress and would not constitute "will carried out freely". It's about as weird and bizarre as, well, duress with another human being the origin. A similarly strong desire to drink water could be achieved by me pointing a gun at you. Is that free will? The problem with your argument is that you assume that determinism is true. The reality is that modern science has evidence to the contrary https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jint5kjoy6I In addition, you are saying that we don't have free will because of cause and effect. But it's important to realize that we have a role in choosing the effect. For instance, if I see a dollar on the floor, I can choose whether or not I want to pick it up. It's not like the outcome where I pick it up is the only possible outcome. I still don't see how free will is possible, whether it is random or cause and effect. You don't understand. The argument is that your neurons firing is a result of cause and effect. There is no way for you to "will" your neurons to fire differently. Saying that we don't don't control our neurons isn't exactly true http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/mind-over-matter-study-shows-how-177580 I think you're miss understanding the research because it doesn't have anything to do with free will. There is a stimulus which causes neurons to fire, that's all that's happening in terms of the free will/cause and effect debate. (What's noteworthy about this research is simply that the stimulus activates neurons which govern consciousness, which then activate the neuron that they are examining. But that doesn't mean anything outside of cause and effect is happening). Neurons firing is your "will." We need to stop talking about our brains as though they aren't "us". The idea of me telling my brain to be different doesn't make sense because my brain is what's doing the telling. That's my point; that there is no "super-natural" entity such as the soul which causes neurons to fire in a different manner than they already are going to based on cause and effect (and quantum uncertainty at the quantum level).