"age" verses "quirk"

[Age]

But, you, still, do not yet know which one is true, right?

Yeah...

Oh, I think I'm very fortunate to recognize myself as I am: a free will (in the libertarian sense), an embodied soul.

...I do.

So, to this one, it, still, believes that metallic machines are made up of meat.

No, of course not. When I refer to meat machines I'm not talkin' about man-made contraptions.

And, the fact that you "henry quirk" are obviously not yet doing what you were intended for proves that you have the ability to choose, correct?

As I'm the one who sets my course: I'm doing exactly as I intend.

[henry quirk]

Let's try this again...

You asked: But, you, still, do not yet know which one is true, right?

My answer is: Yeah, I do know which is true becuz I recognize myself as I am: a free will (in the libertarian sense), an embodied soul.

So, when this one talks about 'automated machines' it must be talking about the non human made contraptions.

When I say meat machines I'm talking about living things that are not free wills.

Do you, really, believe that absolutely no one or no thing is setting a course for you?

Yes, I really believe I set my course.

And do you, really, believe that absolutely no one or no thing has set, nor is setting, a course for, while, still, believing that 'a person' created the whole of the Universe?

Do you know what a deist is? Do you know what a deist believes?

Also, why did you and why do you, purposely, intend to make False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect claims, and have and hold onto False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect beliefs and presumptions?

I don't.

And, why, exactly, did you intend to follow and abide by the laws of the state that have control over and which govern you?

Heinlein said it best...

I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

[henry quirk]

So, what the one known as "henry quirk" 'recognizes' "itself" to be, is what it 'knows' is 'the truth' for absolutely every one.

Yes.

just like a so-called "deterministic atheist" 'recognizes' itself to be 'that', this is what 'that one' 'knows' is 'the truth' for absolutely every one, as well.

Difference is: he's wrong.

"henry quirk", supposedly, 'knows' that it is, absolutely, true that, absolutely, every one is a so-called "libertarian free will"

Yes.

because "henry quirk" 'recognizes' that 'it' is a "libertarian free will".

No. It's becuz it's true.

In order words whatever "henry quirk 'recognizes', 'sees', 'assumes', and/or 'beliefs' is true, then 'this' must be true for absolutely everyone else as well.

No.

Now, it makes me wonder how "henry quirk" would reply to one who also said and claimed, 'I do know 'necessitarianism' is true because I recognize "myself" as I am: a "necessitarian".

You don't have to wonder.

Would "henry quirk" accept the 'exact same logic' if and when it was used by another with an opposing belief?

No.

'I do know that evolution and creation, free will and determinism, nature and nurture are true because I recognize, thy and thee, Self as 'I am', exactly: an evolving free-willed deterministic naturally nurtured created Being'.

Whoever sez such a thing is wrong.

What you are trying to say and claim here is that if and when one 'recognizes' some thing, then this means that 'that thing' is true for absolutely every one. Which therefore means that if, and when, one 'recognizes' "them" 'self' as an "atheist", then "atheism" is true.

No.

Are there absolutely any 'living things', to you, that are not so-called 'free wills'?

Yes.

Also, are you yet aware that what are so-called 'living things' to you are not necessarily so to others, and vice versa?

Please, give me an example.

Also, are you yet aware that your own personal definition/s of and for the words 'free will' are not the same for everyone else, either?

Yes, I'm aware some folks have cockeye'd definitions.

So, when you do Wrong, you have purposely set 'this course', 'for you', right?

If I do wrong: I'm responsible becuz I chose to do wrong.

Are you asking 'me' do I know what 'a deist' is and what a so-called "deist" believes(?)

Yes.

Also, are you yet aware that how you define the "deist" word is different than how I do?

How do you define deist?

So, which ones of these two here are true "henry quirk"?

Neither.

Or, are you lying here "henry quirk"?

No.

Or, could you just be believing some thing is true here but which is actually false?

It's possible.

here you are...continually doing what is morally Wrong

Please, give me an example.

[henry quirk]

But, 'you', the one individual human being here known as "henry quirk" are 'right', and are absolutely always 'right', right?

Of course not.

Even when it changes it views and beliefs it, still, believes that it is always 'right'?

Of course not.

which one/s of you human beings have and hold the absolute and irrefutable 'truthfulness' here?

I do.

why is it that one or those ones, exactly?

Becuz each of us, you included, are free wills. We're not, not a single one of us (including you) meat machines.

Do you, or do not, see the contradiction and hypocrisy here?

There is none. I say I'm right on a specific (man, any man, is a free will). I do not say I'm necessarily right about everything else under the sun.

So, going by your own so-called 'logic' here what this one is saying is true, is because it is, simply, true.

No. I'm sayin' he's wrong becuz to say man is a meat machine is wrong.

But yet here you are expecting others to 'accept your belief and claim', here, correct?

No. I don't expect anyone to accept anything I have to say on this subject or any other.

First, I'm a lousy salesman. My product (a person is self-directng, self-reliant, self-responsible) goes against the current thinking (man is just meat: not responsible, interdependent, must be directed). I don't know how to sell the harder truth over the easier lie. Second: everyone, including you, continues to live as they are (as free wills) even as many claim they're only meat machines.

So, mostly, when I participate here, it's simply to state a position. I figure the reader's intuitions about himself will, or won't, do the heavy lifting.

It's a -- as the forum's resident scripted nihilist sez -- a win-win. Folks either see themselves as they are or don't and I get to say my piece (over and over and over and...) regardless if whether anyone listens.

Like 'what', exactly, for example?

An amoeba. Or a trout. Or a mosquito. Or a...

I would have to first find out what are 'living things' and what are 'not living things', to you, for me to provide you with examples

Living things would include, for example, an amoeba. Or a trout. Or a mosquito.

Non-living things would include, for example, a rock. Or my car. Or oxygen.

Free wills would include, for example, human beings. There may be others.

When you just quote only a part of a question I ask you, and then respond, and so are not answering the actual question/s I am asking you, for clarification, thus you are not being Truly open and honest here, then all you are doing is just trying to deceive and fool you, and the readers, here.

Also, by picking and choosing to just answer some questions, while ignoring others completely and completely ignoring parts of some is all just to deceptive and misleading for me to want to continue this here with you.

When I edit out extraneous garbage (your unkind opinions) or reword or reorder your questions, I'm tryin' to get to the radix and bypass all the poop. It's not wrong of me to value my time and energy and be frugal with both. If you feel you're gettin' a raw deal, please understand that's not my intent.

And, if you want to believe that 'you' and absolutely everyone else are 'free willed persons' only, and all of are created by just 'one person' alone, solely based upon nothing else but your own assumption

I believe I, and you, and every other human being who lives, has lived, will live, is a free will, yes. It's not an assumption. There are evidences. Wanna examine them?

you' alone who 'set this course' here, 'for you', correct?

Obviously.

[Age]

But, 'you', the one individual human being here known as "henry quirk" are 'right', and are absolutely always 'right', right?

Of course not.

So, when are you 'right' and 'not right', exactly?

And, how can any of the readers here 'know' when 'you are right' from when 'you are not right'?

Even when it changes it views and beliefs it, still, believes that it is always 'right'?

Of course not.

So, 'now' it is not always right, here.

Which is, absolutely, obvious. But, when this gets pointed out to 'this one', 'this one' believes, absolutely, that 'it is right'. And, again, solely based upon absolutely but just because it just believes that 'it is right', only.

which one/s of you human beings have and hold the absolute and irrefutable 'truthfulness' here?

I do.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, again, it believes it has 'the truth' on absolutely nothing other than 'because it is right'.

So, what 'we' have 'now' is this one knowing that it is not always right, but it believes that it always right when it believes that it is always right.

why is it that one or those ones, exactly?

Becuz each of us, you included, are free wills.

What do 'you' mean by 'us', exactly?

And, what are 'free wills', exactly?

We're not, not a single one of us (including you) meat machines.

So, what are 'we', 'you', and 'me' then, exactly?

Do you, or do not, see the contradiction and hypocrisy here?

There is none. I say I'm right on a specific (man, any man, is a free will). I do not say I'm necessarily right about everything else under the sun.

So, why are only "men" a so-called 'free will'?

Why are children and "women" not, to 'you'?

And, it is only "men" of the 'human animal' that are, supposedly, a so-called 'free will'? Or, are other animals a 'free will' also?

So, going by your own so-called 'logic' here what this one is saying is true, is because it is, simply, true.

No. I'm sayin' he's wrong becuz to say man is a meat machine is wrong.

And, to say "man" is any thing but what "man" is Wrong, also.

But, here 'you' are continually doing 'this'.

But yet here you are expecting others to 'accept your belief and claim', here, correct?

No. I don't expect anyone to accept anything I have to say on this subject or any other.

Great, then hopefully 'you' will stop expressing as though 'you' could not be wrong or incorrect in absolutely any way whatsoever here.

First, I'm a lousy salesman. My product (a person is self-directng, self-reliant, self-responsible) goes against the current thinking (man is just meat: not responsible, interdependent, must be directed). I don't know how to sell the harder truth over the easier lie. Second: everyone, including you, continues to live as they are (as free wills) even as many claim they're only meat machines.

Why do you believe, absolutely, that it is only 'one' or 'the other' here?

So, mostly, when I participate here, it's simply to state a position. I figure the reader's intuitions about himself will, or won't, do the heavy lifting.

'you' are absolutely 'free' to 'figure' absolutely any thing. But, hopefully even 'you' will eventually 'see' and 'comprehend' that 'you' could be absolutely, or partly, wrong here.

But, from what 'you' have been doing so far, it could be quiet some time before 'you' will ever be able to 'see' what the actual and irrefutable Truth is here, exactly.

It's a -- as the forum's resident scripted nihilist sez -- a win-win. Folks either see themselves as they are or don't and I get to say my piece (over and over and over and...) regardless if whether anyone listens.

And, 'you', the one known as "henry quirk" here, have proved over and over here that 'you', still, have not yet 'seen', comprehended and understood, who and what 'you' are, exactly.

Like 'what', exactly, for example?

An amoeba. Or a trout. Or a mosquito. Or a...

Okay.

I would have to first find out what are 'living things' and what are 'not living things', to you, for me to provide you with examples

Living things would include, for example, an amoeba. Or a trout. Or a mosquito.

Non-living things would include, for example, a rock. Or my car. Or oxygen.

Free wills would include, for example, human beings. There may be others.

Okay.

When you just quote only a part of a question I ask you, and then respond, and so are not answering the actual question/s I am asking you, for clarification, thus you are not being Truly open and honest here, then all you are doing is just trying to deceive and fool you, and the readers, here.

Also, by picking and choosing to just answer some questions, while ignoring others completely and completely ignoring parts of some is all just to deceptive and misleading for me to want to continue this here with you.

When I edit out extraneous garbage (your unkind opinions) or reword or reorder your questions, I'm tryin' to get to the radix and bypass all the poop.

When you say and/or claim things like this, then you are just 'trying to' 'justify' your deceptive Wrong doing.

It's not wrong of me to value my time and energy and be frugal with both.

Of course not.

What is Wrong is trying to be, or being, deceptive.

These are two very different things, obviously.

If you feel you're gettin' a raw deal, please understand that's not my intent.

Well 'I' do not and never would feel that 'I' am getting a so-called 'raw deal', 'from you'.

And, if you want to believe that 'you' and absolutely everyone else are 'free willed persons' only, and all of are created by just 'one person' alone, solely based upon nothing else but your own assumption

I believe I, and you, and every other human being who lives, has lived, will live, is a free will, yes. It's not an assumption. There are evidences. Wanna examine them?

Yes.

And, I am not sure how many times that I have informed you that 'proof' will always outweigh or override just 'evidence'.

But, please present 'your evidences' that all of you human beings are so-called 'a free will'.

you' alone who 'set this course' here, 'for you', correct?

Obviously.

Great.

So, when it was pointed out to 'you' previously, where, why, and how 'you' were and are Wrong, then this was 'the course' that 'you' have 'set', 'for you'.

Which 'you', readily, admit.

[henry quirk]

So, when are you 'right' and 'not right', exactly?

I'm right on the money when I say, for example, age is a free will. I could be well off the mark when I say, for example, age is a 22 year old boy with Asperger syndrome.

And, how can any of the readers here 'know' when 'you are right' from when 'you are not right'?

Using the examples just above: in the later, meeting you would determine if I'm right; with the former, self-interrogation is a good place to start (what does my experience of self along with my intuitions tell me?)

What do 'you' mean by 'us', exactly?

People. At last count there were 8 billion plus of us.

And, what are 'free wills', exactly?

A free will, most simply, is one whose choices are not necessarily rooted in prior events/causes. The free will is a cause, an agent, a point of creative and causal power.

So, what are 'we', 'you', and 'me' then, exactly?

Free wills.

So, why are only "men" a so-called 'free will'?

It's just a convention of language, age. In context, when I say men, I mean people, persons, women and children included.

Or, are other animals a 'free will' also?

Very possibly.

Why do you believe, absolutely, that it is only 'one' or 'the other' here?

Compatibilism -- that we have free will and are determined -- is nonsensical. Necessitarianism is clear: all things, no matter the configuration, are particles (particle aggregates) and reality is nuthin' but the relentless smacking of particles into particles. Somehow, the compatibilist sez, we still get to choose. If, however, as necessitarianism sez we are nuthin' but particle aggregates then our thoughts and feelings, our choices, and our actions are nuthin' but the necessary product of particles slamming into particles.

So: it has to be one way or the other. There simply isn't any middle ground between libertarian free will and necessitarianism.

Yes

Let's start with the most obvious: everyone, you included, has the intuition of being in control of themselves. When you, for example, choose one course over another, you don't defer to a causal chain. You don't say I choose X instead of Y becuz of events that preceded that choice, nor do you feel your choice is somehow bound up in your genes. You don't, if you're honest, blame your choice on your circumstance. Always, it's your sense that your choice begins with you, that you're responsible for it.

Let's examine this first then proceed to other evidences.

[Age]

So, when are you 'right' and 'not right', exactly?

I'm right on the money when I say, for example, age is a free will. I could be well off the mark when I say, for example, age is a 22 year old boy with Asperger syndrome.

And, how can any of the readers here 'know' when 'you are right' from when 'you are not right'?

Using the examples just above: in the later, meeting you would determine if I'm right; with the former, self-interrogation is a good place to start (what does my experience of self along with my intuitions tell me?)

What do 'you' mean by 'us', exactly?

People. At last count there were 8 billion plus of us.

And, what are 'free wills', exactly?

A free will, most simply, is one whose choices are not necessarily rooted in prior events/causes. The free will is a cause, an agent, a point of creative and causal power.

So, what are 'we', 'you', and 'me' then, exactly?

Free wills.

So, why are only "men" a so-called 'free will'?

It's just a convention of language, age. In context, when I say men, I mean people, persons, women and children included.

Or, are other animals a 'free will' also?

Very possibly.

Why do you believe, absolutely, that it is only 'one' or 'the other' here?

Compatibilism -- that we have free will and are determined -- is nonsensical. Necessitarianism is clear: all things, no matter the configuration, are particles (particle aggregates) and reality is nuthin' but the relentless smacking of particles into particles. Somehow, the compatibilist sez, we still get to choose. If, however, as necessitarianism sez we are nuthin' but particle aggregates then our thoughts and feelings, our choices, and our actions are nuthin' but the necessary product of particles slamming into particles.

So: it has to be one way or the other. There simply isn't any middle ground between libertarian free will and necessitarianism.

Yes

Let's start with the most obvious: everyone, you included, has the intuition of being in control of themselves. When you, for example, choose one course over another, you don't defer to a causal chain. You don't say I choose X instead of Y becuz of events that preceded that choice, nor do you feel your choice is somehow bound up in your genes. You don't, if you're honest, blame your choice on your circumstance. Always, it's your sense that your choice begins with you, that you're responsible for it.

Let's examine this first then proceed to other evidences.

What are you even on about here now?

Once again 'we' have another one who has completely and utterly missed and/or misunderstood what has been and is going on here.

And, again, this is because this what is not open to absolutely anything else, other that what it believes, absolutely, is true.

It is not honest enough and thus not open enough to just seek out actual clarity here, not open to the fact that it could be wrong absolutely anywhere in its beliefs and claims, not taking responsibility for its Wrong doings here, and this is why it has drifted so far afield and has been completely missing out on what the actual irrefutable Truth is, here.

But, because it believes that it already knows what the absolute truth is here, this is why i0t also believes that there is nothing else nor more for it to learn here.

[Age]

One just has to look at this thread title here, which is what "henry quirk" wanted , to see the 'intention' behind this thread that "henry quirk" sought out.

[henry quirk]

What are you even on about here now?

What confuses you?

[Age]

What are you even on about here now?

What confuses you?

It is not that any thing is confusing me.

I am just asking you what are you even on about here now.

[henry quirk]

I am just asking you what are you even on about here now.

What, in this post...

So, when are you 'right' and 'not right', exactly?

I'm right on the money when I say, for example, age is a free will. I could be well off the mark when I say, for example, age is a 22 year old boy with Asperger syndrome.

And, how can any of the readers here 'know' when 'you are right' from when 'you are not right'?

Using the examples just above: in the later, meeting you would determine if I'm right; with the former, self-interrogation is a good place to start (what does my experience of self along with my intuitions tell me?)

What do 'you' mean by 'us', exactly?

People. At last count there were 8 billion plus of us.

And, what are 'free wills', exactly?

A free will, most simply, is one whose choices are not necessarily rooted in prior events/causes. The free will is a cause, an agent, a point of creative and causal power.

So, what are 'we', 'you', and 'me' then, exactly?

Free wills.

So, why are only "men" a so-called 'free will'?

It's just a convention of language, age. In context, when I say men, I mean people, persons, women and children included.

Or, are other animals a 'free will' also?

Very possibly.

Why do you believe, absolutely, that it is only 'one' or 'the other' here?

Compatibilism -- that we have free will and are determined -- is nonsensical. Necessitarianism is clear: all things, no matter the configuration, are particles (particle aggregates) and reality is nuthin' but the relentless smacking of particles into particles. Somehow, the compatibilist sez, we still get to choose. If, however, as necessitarianism sez we are nuthin' but particle aggregates then our thoughts and feelings, our choices, and our actions are nuthin' but the necessary product of particles slamming into particles.

So: it has to be one way or the other. There simply isn't any middle ground between libertarian free will and necessitarianism.

Yes

Let's start with the most obvious: everyone, you included, has the intuition of being in control of themselves. When you, for example, choose one course over another, you don't defer to a causal chain. You don't say I choose X instead of Y becuz of events that preceded that choice, nor do you feel your choice is somehow bound up in your genes. You don't, if you're honest, blame your choice on your circumstance. Always, it's your sense that your choice begins with you, that you're responsible for it.

Let's examine this first then proceed to other evidences.

...is moving you to ask what are you even on about here now(?)

[Age]

I am just asking you what are you even on about here now.

What, in this post...

So, when are you 'right' and 'not right', exactly?

I'm right on the money when I say, for example, age is a free will. I could be well off the mark when I say, for example, age is a 22 year old boy with Asperger syndrome.

And, how can any of the readers here 'know' when 'you are right' from when 'you are not right'?

Using the examples just above: in the later, meeting you would determine if I'm right; with the former, self-interrogation is a good place to start (what does my experience of self along with my intuitions tell me?)

What do 'you' mean by 'us', exactly?

People. At last count there were 8 billion plus of us.

And, what are 'free wills', exactly?

A free will, most simply, is one whose choices are not necessarily rooted in prior events/causes. The free will is a cause, an agent, a point of creative and causal power.

So, what are 'we', 'you', and 'me' then, exactly?

Free wills.

So, why are only "men" a so-called 'free will'?

It's just a convention of language, age. In context, when I say men, I mean people, persons, women and children included.

Or, are other animals a 'free will' also?

Very possibly.

Why do you believe, absolutely, that it is only 'one' or 'the other' here?

Compatibilism -- that we have free will and are determined -- is nonsensical. Necessitarianism is clear: all things, no matter the configuration, are particles (particle aggregates) and reality is nuthin' but the relentless smacking of particles into particles. Somehow, the compatibilist sez, we still get to choose. If, however, as necessitarianism sez we are nuthin' but particle aggregates then our thoughts and feelings, our choices, and our actions are nuthin' but the necessary product of particles slamming into particles.

So: it has to be one way or the other. There simply isn't any middle ground between libertarian free will and necessitarianism.

Yes

Let's start with the most obvious: everyone, you included, has the intuition of being in control of themselves. When you, for example, choose one course over another, you don't defer to a causal chain. You don't say I choose X instead of Y becuz of events that preceded that choice, nor do you feel your choice is somehow bound up in your genes. You don't, if you're honest, blame your choice on your circumstance. Always, it's your sense that your choice begins with you, that you're responsible for it.

Let's examine this first then proceed to other evidences.

...is moving you to ask what are you even on about here now(?)

From when you said and wrote, 'I'm right on the money ....'.

[henry quirk]

From when you said and wrote, 'I'm right on the money ....'

Here's your post...

But, 'you', the one individual human being here known as "henry quirk" are 'right', and are absolutely always 'right', right?

Of course not.

So, when are you 'right' and 'not right', exactly?

And, how can any of the readers here 'know' when 'you are right' from when 'you are not right'?

Even when it changes it views and beliefs it, still, believes that it is always 'right'?

Of course not.

So, 'now' it is not always right, here.

Which is, absolutely, obvious. But, when this gets pointed out to 'this one', 'this one' believes, absolutely, that 'it is right'. And, again, solely based upon absolutely but just because it just believes that 'it is right', only.

which one/s of you human beings have and hold the absolute and irrefutable 'truthfulness' here?

I do.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, again, it believes it has 'the truth' on absolutely nothing other than 'because it is right'.

So, what 'we' have 'now' is this one knowing that it is not always right, but it believes that it always right when it believes that it is always right.

why is it that one or those ones, exactly?

Becuz each of us, you included, are free wills.

What do 'you' mean by 'us', exactly?

And, what are 'free wills', exactly?

We're not, not a single one of us (including you) meat machines.

So, what are 'we', 'you', and 'me' then, exactly?

Do you, or do not, see the contradiction and hypocrisy here?

There is none. I say I'm right on a specific (man, any man, is a free will). I do not say I'm necessarily right about everything else under the sun.

So, why are only "men" a so-called 'free will'?

Why are children and "women" not, to 'you'?

And, it is only "men" of the 'human animal' that are, supposedly, a so-called 'free will'? Or, are other animals a 'free will' also?

So, going by your own so-called 'logic' here what this one is saying is true, is because it is, simply, true.

No. I'm sayin' he's wrong becuz to say man is a meat machine is wrong.

And, to say "man" is any thing but what "man" is Wrong, also.

But, here 'you' are continually doing 'this'.

But yet here you are expecting others to 'accept your belief and claim', here, correct?

No. I don't expect anyone to accept anything I have to say on this subject or any other.

Great, then hopefully 'you' will stop expressing as though 'you' could not be wrong or incorrect in absolutely any way whatsoever here.

First, I'm a lousy salesman. My product (a person is self-directng, self-reliant, self-responsible) goes against the current thinking (man is just meat: not responsible, interdependent, must be directed). I don't know how to sell the harder truth over the easier lie. Second: everyone, including you, continues to live as they are (as free wills) even as many claim they're only meat machines.

Why do you believe, absolutely, that it is only 'one' or 'the other' here?

So, mostly, when I participate here, it's simply to state a position. I figure the reader's intuitions about himself will, or won't, do the heavy lifting.

'you' are absolutely 'free' to 'figure' absolutely any thing. But, hopefully even 'you' will eventually 'see' and 'comprehend' that 'you' could be absolutely, or partly, wrong here.

But, from what 'you' have been doing so far, it could be quiet some time before 'you' will ever be able to 'see' what the actual and irrefutable Truth is here, exactly.

It's a -- as the forum's resident scripted nihilist sez -- a win-win. Folks either see themselves as they are or don't and I get to say my piece (over and over and over and...) regardless if whether anyone listens.

And, 'you', the one known as "henry quirk" here, have proved over and over here that 'you', still, have not yet 'seen', comprehended and understood, who and what 'you' are, exactly.

Like 'what', exactly, for example?

An amoeba. Or a trout. Or a mosquito. Or a...

Okay.

I would have to first find out what are 'living things' and what are 'not living things', to you, for me to provide you with examples

Living things would include, for example, an amoeba. Or a trout. Or a mosquito.

Non-living things would include, for example, a rock. Or my car. Or oxygen.

Free wills would include, for example, human beings. There may be others.

Okay.

When you just quote only a part of a question I ask you, and then respond, and so are not answering the actual question/s I am asking you, for clarification, thus you are not being Truly open and honest here, then all you are doing is just trying to deceive and fool you, and the readers, here.

Also, by picking and choosing to just answer some questions, while ignoring others completely and completely ignoring parts of some is all just to deceptive and misleading for me to want to continue this here with you.

When I edit out extraneous garbage (your unkind opinions) or reword or reorder your questions, I'm tryin' to get to the radix and bypass all the poop.

When you say and/or claim things like this, then you are just 'trying to' 'justify' your deceptive Wrong doing.

It's not wrong of me to value my time and energy and be frugal with both.

Of course not.

What is Wrong is trying to be, or being, deceptive.

These are two very different things, obviously.

If you feel you're gettin' a raw deal, please understand that's not my intent.

Well 'I' do not and never would feel that 'I' am getting a so-called 'raw deal', 'from you'.

And, if you want to believe that 'you' and absolutely everyone else are 'free willed persons' only, and all of are created by just 'one person' alone, solely based upon nothing else but your own assumption

I believe I, and you, and every other human being who lives, has lived, will live, is a free will, yes. It's not an assumption. There are evidences. Wanna examine them?

Yes.

And, I am not sure how many times that I have informed you that 'proof' will always outweigh or override just 'evidence'.

But, please present 'your evidences' that all of you human beings are so-called 'a free will'.

you' alone who 'set this course' here, 'for you', correct?

Obviously.

Great.

So, when it was pointed out to 'you' previously, where, why, and how 'you' were and are Wrong, then this was 'the course' that 'you' have 'set', 'for you'.

Which 'you', readily, admit.

Here's my response...

So, when are you 'right' and 'not right', exactly?

I'm right on the money when I say, for example, age is a free will. I could be well off the mark when I say, for example, age is a 22 year old boy with Asperger syndrome.

And, how can any of the readers here 'know' when 'you are right' from when 'you are not right'?

Using the examples just above: in the later, meeting you would determine if I'm right; with the former, self-interrogation is a good place to start (what does my experience of self along with my intuitions tell me?)

What do 'you' mean by 'us', exactly?

People. At last count there were 8 billion plus of us.

And, what are 'free wills', exactly?

A free will, most simply, is one whose choices are not necessarily rooted in prior events/causes. The free will is a cause, an agent, a point of creative and causal power.

So, what are 'we', 'you', and 'me' then, exactly?

Free wills.

So, why are only "men" a so-called 'free will'?

It's just a convention of language, age. In context, when I say men, I mean people, persons, women and children included.

Or, are other animals a 'free will' also?

Very possibly.

Why do you believe, absolutely, that it is only 'one' or 'the other' here?

Compatibilism -- that we have free will and are determined -- is nonsensical. Necessitarianism is clear: all things, no matter the configuration, are particles (particle aggregates) and reality is nuthin' but the relentless smacking of particles into particles. Somehow, the compatibilist sez, we still get to choose. If, however, as necessitarianism sez we are nuthin' but particle aggregates then our thoughts and feelings, our choices, and our actions are nuthin' but the necessary product of particles slamming into particles.

So: it has to be one way or the other. There simply isn't any middle ground between libertarian free will and necessitarianism.

Yes

Let's start with the most obvious: everyone, you included, has the intuition of being in control of themselves. When you, for example, choose one course over another, you don't defer to a causal chain. You don't say I choose X instead of Y becuz of events that preceded that choice, nor do you feel your choice is somehow bound up in your genes. You don't, if you're honest, blame your choice on your circumstance. Always, it's your sense that your choice begins with you, that you're responsible for it.

Let's examine this first then proceed to other evidences.

Just like the rest of our exchange which hasn't seemed to trouble you.

[Age]

That you continually believe, absolutely, and continually claim, that you could not be wrong in any way here is what 'I' want to point out and show how these people really could be and were, back in the days when this was being written.

They actually believed that they were absolutely right even when they had no actual proof, and were relying on their own made up assumptions, beliefs, and/or stories alone.

Individual adult human beings were really like what the one here known as "henry quirk" is showing and proving, here.

[henry quirk]

Nuthin' in all that I wanna comment on, so...