>>11538924>The scientific consensus is that free will exists.This is such an incredibly illconceived notion.
The aspiring to be a-scientists need to know their ontological place. There is no scientific consensus partially because that's impossible -- science does not and cannot have anything to say whatsoever about whether free will exists. Any designed experiment would need to infer (a logical, a priori, and should-be ascientific concept that can be imitated but not duplicated) the freedom (a metaphysical concept) of intention (also fundamentally a metaphysical concept).
Science can't determine definitively whether any action is intentional without taking someone's word for it at some point, and then perhaps comparing what someone says of their intention with activity in the brain. Science also can't determine definitively whether any action is done freely. It can perhaps disprove things like determinism, but this is possibly not exhaustive of all possible negations to freedom, and therefore, not exhaustive of all possible negations to freedom. Even if science could magically disprove every possible thing that would be a negation to free will, that is a far-cry from proving absolutely anything is done freely, at least without inferring such.
>>11538919If "free" in free will means "ability to break the physical laws of the universe," which it usually does, only if God exists, then free will exists and exists in us. If He doesn't, then will doesn't even exist.
