>>13733694>it's all just a cosmic random messI disagree with this as a point to disprove free will. You have the capability of evading chaos or ordering it with some kind of approach that you either learn from someone else or come up with on your own.
>>13733713>cherry pick a few people and do survivorship-bias galor?I also disagree with people who argue this. Losers actually support the idea of free will. You have the capability of ignoring chaos and letting it consume your life passively by blaming it on a "random cosmic mess" to absolve yourself of responsibility
>talk about how one is in control of their destiny to the numerous starving African Children right nowNo individual's circumstance is independent of others, and this is the whole point of educating people on free will. The parents of those starving children chose to have sex, and thus brought starving children into the world. The starving children can choose to do what they want in their environment, but their environment is not solely dependent on their own actions.
Free will is not about "total" control over one's own circumstance. Free will is about realizing that you can consciously take action to elevate your circumstances while being aware that you can negatively impact others, or be negatively impacted by their choices.
>I just rather not HAVE to work at allYou have the choice to recognize this is not realistic for yourself or practically almost everyone, much like the starving children in Africa. Your parents had many choices to help kickstart your life, and their parents had choices as well.
Between my undergrad and graduate school, I spent a few months picking up dead bodies for funeral homes. Rich or poor, healthy or unhealthy, ugly or attractive, funny or annoying, smart or dumb, they all die. Everyone dies. Free will is about what you choose to do while you're not dead. You can choose to help yourself, or to make sacrifices to better the lives of others or your future offspring.
