Argument against “Everything is either determined or random, therefore free will does not exist”
This is not my defense of free will, that will need to be more in depth and address many other items of objection. This is just a response to one of the popular arguments I have seen. I will lay out my points and objections I anticipate. If there are any objections I missed please let me know!
The argument as I understand it is this: Every event is either determined or random. An event being determined by another event necessarily implies that it is not free, and similarly if an event is random there is no freedom of choice. Therefore free will does not exist.
If I have misunderstood the point of this argument please clarify.
My argument against:
Point 1: We observe in reality phenomena that is not completely determined and not completely random. For example, weather conditions on a particular day.
First objection to point 1: If we observe something that is not completely determined, it is only because we don’t know all of the factors that determine it. The weather is only partially determinable because we don’t have all of the information and processing power.
Response to first objection to point 1: That objection is an assertion without evidence. The only seeming evidence is that there were once events that we believed were undetermined, but that we now know some more of the factors that determine it. Keep in mind that there still doesn’t exist anything that we know to be completely determined*. The movement from ignorance of determining factors to knowledge of determining factors gives the illusion that this knowledge will go on until all the determining factors are accounted for. But it is an illusion until it occurs in reality and is observed, or can be proven metaphysically which it has not.
Second objection to point 1: Logical argument should not appeal to what we observe in reality.
Response to second objection to point 1: If it followed from logical axioms that determinism and randomness were the only modes of causation, then it must be taken as true unless it was disproven logically. But that is not the case. Some appeal to reality is being made already, and I am just responding to that appeal to reality by my appeal to reality. I would not respond to a logically constructed argument that there only exists either pure determinism or pure randomness with an appeal to reality. But that is not the type of argument that is being made. It is usually put forth as self evident that there is only either determinism or randomness.
Point 2: Following from point 1, viewing all causal events as either determined or random is not the most accurate lens to view the nature of causal events.
Final point: Since not all causal events are either purely determined or purely random, it is not a valid argument against free will.
*the laws of physics may come to mind as being “completely determined.” However, I mean in the sense as it maps to reality. The laws of motion are partially determinative but appear as absolutely determinative in limited scopes.